Robert, My answers are inline.
Rajith On 9/27/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 27/09/2007, Rajith Attapattu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thank you very much. This kind of cynicism helps this project a lot. > > I give up trying to explain it anymore. We can definitely continue to go > > our > > merry ways. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajith > > > > On 9/27/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It is a problem as people continue to write and run the wrong kind > of > > > > tests > > > > under client and broker. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should all be grateful when people contribute tests, and if > > we > > > believe there are gaps (i.e. in micro-tests of individual emthods) > then > > > one > > > should write them onself rather than complaining that other people > > haven't > > > :-) :-) > > > > Rajith, > > I'm not trying to be cynical... but we've had this discussion several > times > before I don't think it does anyone any good to complain about other > people > doing the tests "wrong" in the past. Stating things in absolutes of right > and wrong definitely does none of us any favours. > > I do think it is much more productive to actually write more tests. And > *none* of us have been conspicuous in doing that. My previous mail was as > much to indicate that I am not sticking my oar in because I would feel a > hypocrite for saying how things ought to be when I have been no more > active > in contributing tests than anyone else. Robert I am sad that you saw that as complaining. One should be able to voice ones opinion freely without being perceived as complaining or criticizing whats going on. I felt qpid is lacking certain types of tests and made my concern known. I never implied that the current tests were wrong or doesn't belong. If "continue to write and run the wrong kind of tests under client and broker" gave that impression, please accept my sincere apologies. What I meant was we are running functional tests (which I think belongs under systests and that seems to be general consensus in the thread) in an area meant for pure unit tests. If I understand correct, the src/test dir is designated by maven for unit tests. Now, I am all for re-organising the tests if it makes more sense and so on > (they are surely a mess at the moment). But I think that complaining > about > others is extremely counter-productive. I also worry that once again we > will focus our energies on "re-organising" to the way we individually > might > like things, rather than actually moving things forward (OK - this I admit > is cynical). We should not push our individual preferences, rather what is accepted as common practice within the industry. Unit testing is an important aspect and we seem to lack it. I hardly see that as re-organising to the way we might like individually. I like to see us move with forward with general agreement about what our testing strategy should be. It is not that productive to say "If u feel there are gaps why don't you fix it, rather than complaining". We should fix things as a group/team when it comes to strategy/approach/design etc. It's not about what I think is right. It's all about what the Qpid community thinks is right. I know the tests have been "re-organised" once in the past when things were > moved over to maven, and though I was only a witness I know that this > re-organisation caused a lot of people who wrote those tests originally to > get quite annoyed that things had been broken. I also don't think it > helped > anything very much. I am not for or against maven. As long as we have a proper build tool then it is fine. The general thrust of this discussion has been good. And I think I like the > way the discussion is going - however I do *not* want to rush into > anything. Further there is always a temptation to move the existing tests > "out of the way" to make room for pure unit tests, and to remove the > existing tests from the build. > > This would be a *HUGE* mistake. I don't recall anybody suggesting about removing existing tests. Those tests are very valuable and they are needed for functional testing. I am advocating that we need all kinds of testing. Unit, interop, integration ..etc. Moving them to a separate module doesn't mean there value is lost or removed ..etc. I only suggested that we use standard industry practice, nothing radical. It is up to the community to discuss and agree. Please don't see that as complaining or criticizing. The first concern at the moment *HAS* to be getting M2 out. That means > running the existing tests and finding out why they are failing > intermittantly. Having them fail in a differnt directory isn't exactly > progress :-) <-- note the smiley > > I understand people want to separate out the tests into their correct > locations, to properly distinguish between unit, component, system tests > etc... To distinguish between tests which are JMS (not Qpid), tests which > are AMQP (e.g. the Python tests) etc... We should involve the C++ > developers, the .net developers, python developers etc to look at testing > in > Qpid as a whole. > > However I think the first step should probably be to examine and document > what tests we have at the moment. We already have people who are possibly > existing tests that are already there. The problem is that such a > documentation task isn't high up on anybody's list of fun tasks... and I > doubt that anyone is going to volunteer to do it? Like I said, I'm a > hypocrite since I'm not going to commit myself to doing this, even though > I > know it needs to be done. > > Anyway, before anyone actually goes and makes a change on the > organisation, > can we *please* try to present a detail design and rationale before doing > so? And it would be good if it covered the whole of Qpid and not just the > Java parts. We should be able to leverage tests done in other languages - > surely? > > Your Thoughts? Nobody should arbitrarily change the structure etc.. and I believe that is why Arnaud initiated this discussion. We should agree on strategy and the timing on executing it. I also agree that we need to involve everybody not just java folks. -- Rob > > > > > > > > > -- Rob > > > > > >
