Vivek and I have ported all the lower layers of the test harness. This includes JenkinsController, Docker support, Guice-based object world, Cucumber integration, and JUnit integration.
I can run tests from IDEs individually for both Cucumber and JUnit, although I just realized that I haven't added glue to make all cucumber tests run from "mvn test". JUnit portion obviously does run with "mvn test". We kept the configuration mechanism backward compatible, but I also added a configuration mechanism based on Guice-binding [1]. I've added a set of classes to mimic Capybara methods that we use regularly on top of WebDriver. This made the porting process fairly straight-forward. Page objects and step definitions were ported by using test cases as the driver (I rely on IntelliJ's auto-fix functionality to generate steps one at a time.) So far I have only fully ported freestyle_project.feature, then ant_plugin.feature to JUnit test format. There are still many more steps and page objects to complete, although at this point I feel the rest of the process is fairly mechanical --- so any help in porting feature files would be appreciated. Just claim your feature file, and push your changes. So far, I'm hearing people favoring JUnit tests, including Oliver who is the most active in this project. So I'm starting to think that maybe I'd port other cucumber tests into JUnit format. I continue to welcome feedbacks from others in this area. I need to document a lot of things, and I still intend to, but I have to hack this coming week on something else. I plan on coming back to this in the next weekend. In the mean time, hopefully the code is not too large and simple enough for you everyone to see. [1] http://kohsuke.org/2014/03/01/potd-application-configuration-via-guice-binding-groovy/ 2014-02-28 12:14 GMT-08:00 Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[email protected]>: > Stephen made a point to me in a dev meet-up at FOSDEM that he likes > Cucumber in that tests are more readable (even to developers), even though > he was sympathetic to the overhead for authors of tests. > > So I think I am going to leave them alone. Cucumber has another nice > characteristic that tests that depend on not-yet-ported steps will be > marked as pending, so I can see how far off I am from getting back to the > parity. > > And yes, you will get the ability to write tests in plain-old JUnit4 tests > (which I consider the porting from writing tests in rspec.) Personally, I'd > be writing tests in plain-old JUnit4 tests on Groovy. > > I'm curious to hear from other users on their take on BDD/Cucumber vs > JUnit. > > > > 2014-02-28 11:06 GMT-08:00 oliver gondža <[email protected]>: > > Mostly same story here with the exception I have never felt comfortable or >> productive working in ruby. >> >> Btw, you have expressed dislike towards Cucumber/BDD style features in >> the past. Can we take this opportunity to get rid of it as well? It should >> not mean significantly more work and if it can bring new people in, I think >> it might be worth to try. >> >> -- >> oliver >> > > > > -- > Kohsuke Kawaguchi > -- Kohsuke Kawaguchi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
