Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Stepan, All, This is not a good argument for using "os.any". Even more it may sound like we are going to choose "wrong tool" - why we have to add "os.any" to 99% of classlib tests? just because the harness can not do without it? Well, we have to add the new stuff to these 99% anyway, I mean the annotation itself. And the copy-pasting of longer block doesn't seem to be harder than copy-pasting of short block to me. As I understand "arguments in the old thread" - TestNG makes us to use " os.any" annotation otherwise we have to do a lot of tricks to run tests, right? This was the one of the arguments. So a test's annotation should point out that the test is a special one. I was thinking about a little bit different approach. I will try to explain. The idea was to use annotations as a *single* place for the complete information about test: its type, target OS(es) and etc. Something like inlined test descriptor. Not a red flag. In case someone is looking at the test at the first time he will get a complete information just by reading the annotation located at the same place with the java code. If the annotation itself is not obvious then the developer is obliged to go to some page with annotation descriptions, read it carefully and etc. And it seems we get two places with information about single test: the test's source file and the page with decoding rules for annotations. This IMHO reduces the value of the main TestNG benefit - to have all information about the test in single place. But if we are ok to have several places - we may use Junit TestSuites instead of TestNG. No refactoring is needed at all. To put this another way, these efforts doesn't seem to be so "unnecessary" to me. Efforts are required to make the life better sometimes IMHO. Does this make sense to anyone? Thanks for the reading, 2006/9/12, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 9/11/06, Alexei Zakharov wrote: > > Hi all, > > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > I'd like to point your attention on the previous discussion about > "default groups" : > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I am still for using "os.any" since it is more self-descriptive and > the build script will be simpler with "os.any". This is not a good argument for using "os.any". Even more it may sound like we are going to choose "wrong tool" - why we have to add "os.any" to 99% of classlib tests? just because the harness can not do without it? It will be nice to > hear more arguments for using defaults because it seems the arguments > that were gathered in that old thread hasn't been taken into account > by participants of this thread. As I understand "arguments in the old thread" - TestNG makes us to use " os.any" annotation otherwise we have to do a lot of tricks to run tests, right? IMO a test annotation should be used as "red flag" for developer, for example * "state.broken" - hey, i'm broken fix me please * "os.win" - i'm valid only for Windows, don't try to run me on Linux So a test's annotation should point out that the test is a special one. But if most of tests will contain a similar block of annotations then nobody will looked at them. Does this make sense? Thanks, Stepan. Thanks, > > 2006/9/5, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > > > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > > > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all > available > > > to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' > group > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we > have > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each > such > > > test). > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent > test). > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on > the > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current > exclude > > > list). > > > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) > tests > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any > groups > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define > *all* > > > reasonable group
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/12/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/11/06, Alexei Zakharov wrote: > > Hi all, > > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > I'd like to point your attention on the previous discussion about > "default groups" : > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I am still for using "os.any" since it is more self-descriptive and > the build script will be simpler with "os.any". This is not a good argument for using "os.any". Even more it may sound like we are going to choose "wrong tool" - why we have to add "os.any" to 99% of classlib tests? just because the harness can not do without it? Yes. And we have found a way to avoid "os.any" ;-) It will be nice to > hear more arguments for using defaults because it seems the arguments > that were gathered in that old thread hasn't been taken into account > by participants of this thread. As I understand "arguments in the old thread" - TestNG makes us to use " os.any" annotation otherwise we have to do a lot of tricks to run tests, right? IMO a test annotation should be used as "red flag" for developer, for example * "state.broken" - hey, i'm broken fix me please * "os.win" - i'm valid only for Windows, don't try to run me on Linux So a test's annotation should point out that the test is a special one. But if most of tests will contain a similar block of annotations then nobody will looked at them. Does this make sense? Yes. It really makes sense. We do not want to involve developers in unnecessary effort. Thanks, Stepan. Thanks, > > 2006/9/5, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > > > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > > > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all > available > > > to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' > group > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we > have > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each > such > > > test). > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent > test). > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on > the > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current > exclude > > > list). > > > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) > tests > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any > groups > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define > *all* > > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But > it > > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast > and > > > > slow > > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > > > whether we > > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups > you > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually > exclusive. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > > > test'n'build > > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this poin
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/11/06, Alexei Zakharov wrote: Hi all, > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). I'd like to point your attention on the previous discussion about "default groups" : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am still for using "os.any" since it is more self-descriptive and the build script will be simpler with "os.any". This is not a good argument for using "os.any". Even more it may sound like we are going to choose "wrong tool" - why we have to add "os.any" to 99% of classlib tests? just because the harness can not do without it? It will be nice to hear more arguments for using defaults because it seems the arguments that were gathered in that old thread hasn't been taken into account by participants of this thread. As I understand "arguments in the old thread" - TestNG makes us to use " os.any" annotation otherwise we have to do a lot of tricks to run tests, right? IMO a test annotation should be used as "red flag" for developer, for example * "state.broken" - hey, i'm broken fix me please * "os.win" - i'm valid only for Windows, don't try to run me on Linux So a test's annotation should point out that the test is a special one. But if most of tests will contain a similar block of annotations then nobody will looked at them. Does this make sense? Thanks, Stepan. Thanks, 2006/9/5, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > thanks, Vladimir > > > On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all available > > to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such > > test). > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current exclude > > list). > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and > > > slow > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > > whether we > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > > > want) > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > > test'n'build > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > > > > [1]http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/11/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/11/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > I'd like to point your attention on the previous discussion about > "default groups" : > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I am still for using "os.any" since it is more self-descriptive and > the build script will be simpler with "os.any". It will be nice to > hear more arguments for using defaults because it seems the arguments > that were gathered in that old thread hasn't been taken into account > by participants of this thread. I have not any strong objection about "os.any". And actually I had ever proposed to define the "default" group because we could not include tests with annotation @Test which belong to no groups. Now it isn't a problem as we already have a solution for them. To facilitate writing test cases, we annotate the unit tests which are designed to pass on all platforms (os + arch) with @Test. If we use "os.any" and "arch.any", then the default annotation would be @Test(groups={"os.any", "arch.any"}) Could any other give more comments? Thanks a lot. Either is ok. One is more descriptive while the other is more convenient. If we have no problem to write test.xml with default group(@Test), then I prefer this option a little. Thanks! Best regards, Richard > > Thanks, > > 2006/9/5, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > > > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > > > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all available > > > to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such > > > test). > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current exclude > > > list). > > > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* > > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it > > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and > > > > slow > > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > > > whether we > > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > > > test'n'build > > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > > > TestNG & JU
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/11/06, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). I'd like to point your attention on the previous discussion about "default groups" : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am still for using "os.any" since it is more self-descriptive and the build script will be simpler with "os.any". It will be nice to hear more arguments for using defaults because it seems the arguments that were gathered in that old thread hasn't been taken into account by participants of this thread. I have not any strong objection about "os.any". And actually I had ever proposed to define the "default" group because we could not include tests with annotation @Test which belong to no groups. Now it isn't a problem as we already have a solution for them. To facilitate writing test cases, we annotate the unit tests which are designed to pass on all platforms (os + arch) with @Test. If we use "os.any" and "arch.any", then the default annotation would be @Test(groups={"os.any", "arch.any"}) Could any other give more comments? Thanks a lot. Best regards, Richard Thanks, 2006/9/5, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test > without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have > 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). > > thanks, Vladimir > > > On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all available > > to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such > > test). > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current exclude > > list). > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and > > > slow > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > > whether we > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > > > want) > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > > test'n'build > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > > > > [1]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Hi all, One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). I'd like to point your attention on the previous discussion about "default groups" : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am still for using "os.any" since it is more self-descriptive and the build script will be simpler with "os.any". It will be nice to hear more arguments for using defaults because it seems the arguments that were gathered in that old thread hasn't been taken into account by participants of this thread. Thanks, 2006/9/5, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). thanks, Vladimir On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all available > to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such > test). > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current exclude > list). > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > thanks, Vladimir > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and > > slow > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > whether we > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > > want) > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > test'n'build > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > [1]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Best regards, > > Richard > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/6/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/6/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > Do we really need in it? At present time tests were designed for > win/unix > > only. > > > I thought at least we have interest to port Harmony to these platforms[1]. > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/roadmap.html#Porting%20Matrix Yes, but I don't sure that we will have unique java API tests for all of them. In any case, if we define groups set it should include names for all defined platforms. We proposed to use os+arch to define platform. Best regards, Richard thanks, Vladimir -- > Paulex Yang > China Software Development Lab > IBM > > > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/6/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > Do we really need in it? At present time tests were designed for win/unix > only. > I thought at least we have interest to port Harmony to these platforms[1]. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/roadmap.html#Porting%20Matrix Yes, but I don't sure that we will have unique java API tests for all of them. In any case, if we define groups set it should include names for all defined platforms. thanks, Vladimir -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Vladimir Ivanov wrote: Do we really need in it? At present time tests were designed for win/unix only. I thought at least we have interest to port Harmony to these platforms[1]. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/roadmap.html#Porting%20Matrix -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/5/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > > How to define platform? Get platform information in test code? > > > > > > Yes. It is just one line of code. For example, from Support_Exec.java > > class: > > boolean onUnix = File.separatorChar == '/'; > > > Yes, it does work sometimes, but ... > > How to differentiate AIX, solaris, linux, unix, windows and etc... Do we really need in it? At present time tests were designed for win/unix only. Yes. In the future, Harmony will support more platforms. We may have more platform-dependent test cases. In any case, I don't against the groups but if we define 'general' groups set it should include 'regression' group too. > If there's a public API or can be retrieved from system property, it may > work. The public API does not specify exact names for platforms (java is platform independent :) ) so these ways are equals (but for impl tests it will works fine). thanks, Vladimir > thanks, Vladimir > > > > In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > > > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > > > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present > time > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > > > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the > each > > > > such > > > > > > test). > > > > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not > cpu-dependent > > > > test). > > > > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion > > on > > > > the > > > > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the > > current > > > > > > exclude > > > > > > list). > > > > > > > > > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression > > etc) > > > > > tests > > > > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need > > any > > > > > groups > > > > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to > define > > > > *all* > > > > > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. We should figure out all possible groups. And it can be > > > > consolidated > > > > > during applying TestNG. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests > > that > > > > > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. > > But > > > > it > > > > > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of > > > cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for > > > fast > > > > > and > > > > > > > slow > > > > > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, > and > > > any > > > > > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow > tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The > question > > is > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to > > be > > > > > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever > > groups > > > > you > > > > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually > > > > exclusive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to > run > > > > > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement > > currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an > > automated > > > > > > > test'n'build > > > > > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to > move > > to > > > > > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads > about > > > > > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by > one > > > so > > > > > > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > How to define platform? Get platform information in test code? > > > Yes. It is just one line of code. For example, from Support_Exec.java > class: > boolean onUnix = File.separatorChar == '/'; Yes, it does work sometimes, but ... How to differentiate AIX, solaris, linux, unix, windows and etc... Do we really need in it? At present time tests were designed for win/unix only. In any case, I don't against the groups but if we define 'general' groups set it should include 'regression' group too. If there's a public API or can be retrieved from system property, it may work. The public API does not specify exact names for platforms (java is platform independent :) ) so these ways are equals (but for impl tests it will works fine). thanks, Vladimir thanks, Vladimir > > In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time > we > > > > have > > > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each > > > such > > > > > test). > > > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent > > > test). > > > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion > on > > > the > > > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the > current > > > > > exclude > > > > > list). > > > > > > > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression > etc) > > > > tests > > > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need > any > > > > groups > > > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > > > > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define > > > *all* > > > > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. We should figure out all possible groups. And it can be > > > consolidated > > > > during applying TestNG. > > > > > > > > > Agree. > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests > that > > > > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. > But > > > it > > > > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of > > cause. > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for > > fast > > > > and > > > > > > slow > > > > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and > > any > > > > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question > is > > > > > whether > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to > be > > > > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever > groups > > > you > > > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually > > > exclusive. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement > currently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an > automated > > > > > > test'n'build > > > > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move > to > > > > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > > > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one > > so > > > > > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Term
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/5/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If test fails on linux than (for example): > > - the test/ implementation should be fixed or > > > What if the behaviour is different on different platforms? Seems, that it may be just 2 different tests. - the test should define platform and report 'passed' if it does not > > support current platform > > > How to define platform? Get platform information in test code? Yes. It is just one line of code. For example, from Support_Exec.java class: boolean onUnix = File.separatorChar == '/'; Yes, it does work sometimes, but ... How to differentiate AIX, solaris, linux, unix, windows and etc... If there's a public API or can be retrieved from system property, it may work. thanks, Vladimir In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we > > > have > > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each > > such > > > > test). > > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent > > test). > > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on > > the > > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current > > > > exclude > > > > list). > > > > > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) > > > tests > > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any > > > groups > > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define > > *all* > > > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > > > > > > Yes. We should figure out all possible groups. And it can be > > consolidated > > > during applying TestNG. > > > > > > Agree. > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > > > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But > > it > > > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of > cause. > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for > fast > > > and > > > > > slow > > > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and > any > > > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > > > whether > > > > > we > > > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups > > you > > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually > > exclusive. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > > > > test'n'build > > > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one > so > > > > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > [2]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > [3]http://mail- > > > > > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Richard Liang > > > > > China Software Devel
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If test fails on linux than (for example): > - the test/ implementation should be fixed or What if the behaviour is different on different platforms? Seems, that it may be just 2 different tests. - the test should define platform and report 'passed' if it does not > support current platform How to define platform? Get platform information in test code? Yes. It is just one line of code. For example, from Support_Exec.java class: boolean onUnix = File.separatorChar == '/'; thanks, Vladimir In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we > > have > > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each > such > > > test). > > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent > test). > > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on > the > > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current > > > exclude > > > list). > > > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) > > tests > > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any > > groups > > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define > *all* > > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > > > > Yes. We should figure out all possible groups. And it can be > consolidated > > during applying TestNG. > > > Agree. > thanks, Vladimir > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But > it > > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast > > and > > > > slow > > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > > whether > > > > we > > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups > you > > > > > want) > > > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually > exclusive. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > > > test'n'build > > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > > > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]http://mail- > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > [2]http://mail- > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > [3]http://mail- > > > > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Richard Liang > > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Andrew Zhang > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > > > -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > want) I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. Thanks a lot. and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated test'n'build > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so that we have sufficient preparation. Alex, I must say sorry if I misunderstood you. I mean here we could discuss anything related to Harmony testing. ;-) Best regards, Richard [1]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Richard > > Alex. > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/5/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all > > available > > to him platforms. > > > Yes. But as you mentioned, what's "all available"? > > If a test passes on windows while fails on linux, is it available to > windows? > > If it is, how will we control it? TestNG groups. If developer has only windows box than he should run tests on windows only. If test fails on linux than (for example): - the test/ implementation should be fixed or What if the behaviour is different on different platforms? - the test should define platform and report 'passed' if it does not support current platform How to define platform? Get platform information in test code? In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we > have > > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such > > test). > > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). > > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the > > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current > > exclude > > list). > > > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) > tests > > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any > groups > > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* > > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. > > > Yes. We should figure out all possible groups. And it can be consolidated > during applying TestNG. Agree. thanks, Vladimir thanks, Vladimir > > > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it > > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast > and > > > slow > > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > > whether > > > we > > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > > > want) > > > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > > test'n'build > > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > > > > [1]http://mail- > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [2]http://mail- > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [3]http://mail- > > > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > - > > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Richard Liang > > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > > > - > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Andrew Zhang > China S
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, let's return back to the usage model. > If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each > developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all > available > to him platforms. Yes. But as you mentioned, what's "all available"? If a test passes on windows while fails on linux, is it available to windows? If it is, how will we control it? TestNG groups. If developer has only windows box than he should run tests on windows only. If test fails on linux than (for example): - the test/ implementation should be fixed or - the test should define platform and report 'passed' if it does not support current platform In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group > (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). > Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have > <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase > dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such > test). > Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). > At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the > 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current > exclude > list). > > So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests > and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups > and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) > > On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* > reasonable groups at the begin of the process. Yes. We should figure out all possible groups. And it can be consolidated during applying TestNG. Agree. thanks, Vladimir thanks, Vladimir > > By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that > demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it > provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. > > On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and > > slow > > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > whether > > we > > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > > want) > > > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > > test'n'build > > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > > > > [1]http://mail- > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [2]http://mail- > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [3]http://mail- > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Best regards, > > Richard > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > - > > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Richard Liang > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > - > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
One more note (seems it already was said sorry if I repeat): the test without any marks should be run in all configurations (i.e. we have 'default' group but declaration of this group may be missed). thanks, Vladimir On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, let's return back to the usage model. If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all available to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such test). Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current exclude list). So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* reasonable groups at the begin of the process. thanks, Vladimir By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and > slow > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is > whether we > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > want) > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > Thanks a lot. > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > test'n'build > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > [1]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Best regards, > Richard > > > > > Alex. > > > > - > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, let's return back to the usage model. If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all available to him platforms. Yes. But as you mentioned, what's "all available"? If a test passes on windows while fails on linux, is it available to windows? If it is, how will we control it? TestNG groups. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such test). Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current exclude list). So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* reasonable groups at the begin of the process. Yes. We should figure out all possible groups. And it can be consolidated during applying TestNG. thanks, Vladimir By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and > slow > > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether > we > > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > > want) > > I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. > > Thanks a lot. > > and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. > > That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > > > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated > test'n'build > > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. > > Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to > TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about > TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so > that we have sufficient preparation. > > > [1]http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [2]http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [3]http://mail- archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Best regards, > Richard > > > > > Alex. > > > > - > > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
2006/9/4, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Alex Blewitt wrote: > IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based > on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression > test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at > agreeing on the difference between them :-) This is really a problem, however it might be simpler than we imagine. We are open to any discussion. ;-) Anyway, developers are required to write unit tests. > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we have any requirements to run only the regression tests. I believe we have not. If a testcase was added to prevent regression, it basically means that there was a hole in test coverage for some reason. Provided that such "holes" are scattered randomly through the given module, what for we may want to run such a sieve test suite? I can think of the sole reason, that regression tests may *potentially* highlight weak spots in the code (or design) which are more prone to fail during code evolution. But still I see no reason to run only regression tests ignoring others. I'd rather second Alex in fast/slow grouping orthogonal to regressions. As for information purposes, Mikhail (?) suggested good idea - explicitly specify no. of the issue in descripton comment (or annotation). [snip] -- Alexey - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
OK, let's return back to the usage model. If I understood it correctly, before the commit of any changes each developer run *all* tests (at least all which we have now) on all available to him platforms. In this context seems we don't need in any 'level' group (while 'stress' tests require reasonable time to pass). Seems, that "platform" group also can be deleted (at present time we have <10 platform-dependent tests and this amount should not increase dramatically so the platform-detection can be included to the each such test). Also "cpu" groups can be deleted (while we have not cpu-dependent test). At the end we need only "state" groups to support test exclusion on the 'one-element' level (while we have unresolved entries in the current exclude list). So, after small update of unit (aka integration, aka regression etc) tests and resolution of all entries in the exclude list we don't need any groups and pure JUnit covers all our needs :) On the other side, if we define some groups it will nice to define *all* reasonable groups at the begin of the process. thanks, Vladimir By the way, our regression tests are 'classic' regression tests that demonstrate some issues which were not resolved by initial code. But it provides less coverage than 'regression tests' + unit tests, of cause. On 9/5/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow > > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we > > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. > > No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be > mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you > want) I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. Thanks a lot. and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run > fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. > Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated test'n'build > system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so that we have sufficient preparation. [1]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Richard > > Alex. > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Alex Blewitt wrote: IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at agreeing on the difference between them :-) This is really a problem, however it might be simpler than we imagine. We are open to any discussion. ;-) Anyway, developers are required to write unit tests. If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any automated build system can handle running the slow tests. IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we have any requirements to run only the regression tests. Alex. On 04/09/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > Hi Vladimir > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression > tests? > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > correctness of bug-fixing. Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation (smt. like use-case for group)? thanks, Vladimir Best regards, > Richard. > > > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > >> > >> > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > >> thanks, Vladimir > >> > >> > >> Richard > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > >> > >> > Hello All, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > >> Zakharov. > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following > 4 > >> > >> > dimensions: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > >> most of > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > >> groups. e.g > >> > ., > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >> > >> > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that > >> is, > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, > >> because > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of > >> tests > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail > >> on one > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > >> groups. e.g > >> > ., > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64 > "}) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > >> convenient > >> > way > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > >> support 10 > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > >> > MacOS, > >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > >> > state.broken.MacOS > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > >> > >> > Specification > >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for > >> Harmony-specific > >> > >> > implementation > >> > >> > > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > >> > complexity > >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >> > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the > >> verification > >> > of > >> > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate > project. > >> > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we > >> may use > >> > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: > >> > >> > > >> > >> >
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Vladimir Ivanov wrote: On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: > Hi Vladimir > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the correctness of bug-fixing. Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation (smt. like use-case for group)? Good idea ;-) I will add some use-cases for the groups. And *everyone* is welcome to edit the wiki page [1] [1]http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention Best regards, Richard thanks, Vladimir Best regards, Richard. > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. >> >> >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. >> thanks, Vladimir >> >> >> Richard >> > > thanks, Vladimir >> > > >> > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: >> > >> > Hello All, >> > >> > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei >> Zakharov. >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. >> > >> > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >> > >> > dimensions: >> > >> > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, >> most of >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >> groups. e.g >> > ., >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) >> > >> > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that >> is, >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, >> because >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of >> tests >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail >> on one >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >> groups. e.g >> > ., >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64 "}) >> > >> > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a >> convenient >> > way >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we >> support 10 >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for >> > MacOS, >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use >> > state.broken.MacOS >> > >> > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >> > >> > Specification >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for >> Harmony-specific >> > >> > implementation >> > >> > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. >> > >> > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in >> > complexity >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >> > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the >> verification >> > of >> > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. >> > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). >> > >> > >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we >> may use >> > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello All, >> > >> >> > >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to >> > figure >> > >> another example soon. ;-) >> > >> >> > >> Best regards, >> > >> Richard >> > >> > >> > >> > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of >> > >> > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG >> to add >> > a >> > >> > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to >> specify >> > >> > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your >> comments >> > >> > or suggestion. ;-) >> > >> > >> > >> >>
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/5/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you want) I agree. For example, os.win and os.linux are not mutually exclusive. Thanks a lot. and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. That makes sense through we have not clear requirement currently. Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated test'n'build system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. Really? ;-) We could also discuss whether it's feasible to move to TestNG. As you may know, there are already several threads about TestNG & JUnit. Here I just review the open questions one by one so that we have sufficient preparation. [1]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [2]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] [3]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Best regards, Richard Alex. - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 04/09/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we have any requirements to run only the regression tests. No, probably not the key point, but (a) groups don't have to be mutually exclusive (so you can decorate it with whatever groups you want) and (b) it might be useful for an automated build system to run fast tests first, followed by slow (or non-fast) tests. Mind you, I don't know what's going to happen with an automated test'n'build system; so it might not make sense to do it at this point. Alex. - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/4/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/4/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, my question was for what particular reason? for example? > > > > Tio verify correctness of bug-fixing IMHO all the unit, intergration, > api, and > > regression tests should be run > > Running all tests are always good to verify our code quality. And I > think this is what we have been doing. But what will we do if it takes > us 24 hours to run all Harmony tests? Anyway, running regression tests > could provide some confidence to our bug-fixing. We may consider it as > another option. :-) I prefer to run all tests in one module instead. :) Although it can not guarentee all tests would pass, it's less likey to break build system frequently. If the fix causes other module fails, it shows the lack of tests in its module. And we should add the corresponding test in the module. Running all tests for one module is practical for most cases (except luni). Currently, Harmony regression test is a test for certain Harmony jira issue. So IMHO, running all regression tests for certain issue doesn't make sense. Yes, Harmony regression test is not the so-called "regression test" which aim to verify that no unwanted changes were introduced to one part of the system as a result of making changes to another part of the system. I agree that we may not want to run all the "regression test". If there is no objection I will remove "level.regression" But whether using annotation to mark regression test is another story. At least, it doesn't have any disadvantages compared with comment way, does it? We may use @Test(description="Regression: Harmony-"). Best regards, > Richard > > > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail > > > > 2006/9/4, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > > Hi Vladimir > > > > > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression > tests? > > > > > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > > > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > > > correctness of bug-fixing. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > > > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > > > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > > > >> thanks, Vladimir > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Richard > > > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > > > >> > >> > Hello All, > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the > related > > > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > > > >> Zakharov. > > > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the > following 4 > > > >> > >> > dimensions: > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > > > >> most of > > > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > > > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for > one > > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > > >> groups. e.g > > > >> > ., > > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, > that > > > >> is, > > > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every > platform, > > > >> because > > > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs > of > > > >> tests > > > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > > > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only > fail > > > >> on one > > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > > >> groups. e.g > > > >> > ., > > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", " > os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > > > >> convenient > > > >> > way > > > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > > > >> support 10 > > > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except > for > > > >>
RE: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
>-Original Message- >From: Andrew Zhang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 6:18 PM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test > >On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 9/4/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Well, my question was for what particular reason? for example? >> > >> > Tio verify correctness of bug-fixing IMHO all the unit, intergration, >> api, and >> > regression tests should be run >> >> Running all tests are always good to verify our code quality. And I >> think this is what we have been doing. But what will we do if it takes >> us 24 hours to run all Harmony tests? Anyway, running regression tests >> could provide some confidence to our bug-fixing. We may consider it as >> another option. :-) > > >I prefer to run all tests in one module instead. :) Although it can not >guarentee all tests would pass, it's less likey to break build system >frequently. If the fix causes other module fails, it shows the lack of >tests in its module. And we should add the corresponding test in the module. > >Currently, Harmony regression test is a test for certain Harmony jira issue. >So IMHO, running all regression tests for certain issue doesn't make sense. > >But whether using annotation to mark regression test is another story. At >least, it doesn't have any disadvantages compared with comment way, does it? Agree. We may introduce a special annotation for this purpose. Regards, Alexey. > > >Best regards, >> Richard >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Mikhail >> > >> > 2006/9/4, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > > >> > > >> > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: >> > > > Hi Vladimir >> > > > >> > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? >> > > > >> > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression >> tests? >> > > >> > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test >> > > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the >> > > correctness of bug-fixing. >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Richard. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Mikhail >> > > > >> > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: >> > > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. >> > > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as >> > > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. >> > > >> thanks, Vladimir >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Richard >> > > >> > > thanks, Vladimir >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: >> > > >> > >> > Hello All, >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the >> related >> > > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei >> > > >> Zakharov. >> > > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the >> following 4 >> > > >> > >> > dimensions: >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. >> > > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, >> > > >> most of >> > > >> > >> > o
Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/4/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I sent my reply this afternoon, but I have not received it. (it seems > there > is something wrong with my smtp server). So I send it again. :-) > > On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based > > on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression > > test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at > > agreeing on the difference between them :-) > > > > This is really a problem, however it might be simpler than we imagine. We > are open to any discussion. ;-) Anyway, developers are required to write > unit tests. > > > If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow > > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. > > > IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we > have any requirements to run only the regression tests. I think your first proposal looks fine. Platform + os + state + api/impl information are enough for all tests. We have to assure all tests pass on every platform. Thanks a lot. Well, I agree :-). TestNG annotations are most helpful to us in the management of unit tests that are prone to change. For example, some unit tests suddenly break on a particular platform. or we may want to exclude some tests temporarily. Here I just try to list "all" the possible facets, so that we could have more thorough discussion. Best regards, Richard For quick run, developers can use their own short approach, like run single test in IDE... It's not business of TestNG. :-) Best regards, > Richard > > Alex. > > > > On 04/09/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > > > Hi Vladimir > > > > > > > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > > > > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression > > > > tests? > > > > > > > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > > > > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > > > > correctness of bug-fixing. > > > > > > > > > Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) > > > On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation > > (smt. > > > like use-case for group)? > > > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > > > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > > > > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > > > > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will > enough. > > > > >> thanks, Vladimir > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Richard > > > > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > > > > >> > >> > Hello All, > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the > > related > > > > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > > > > >> Zakharov. > > > > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the > > following > > > > 4 > > > > >> > >> > dimensions: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > > > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. > IMHO, > > > > >> most of > > > > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > > > > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for > > one > > > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > > > >> groups. e.g > > > > >> > ., > > > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, > > that > > > > >> is, > > > > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > > > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every > > platform, > > > > >> because > > > > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the > bugs > > of > > > > >> tests > > > > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > > > > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only > > fail > > > > >> on one > > > > >> > >> > speci
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/4/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, my question was for what particular reason? for example? > > Tio verify correctness of bug-fixing IMHO all the unit, intergration, api, and > regression tests should be run Running all tests are always good to verify our code quality. And I think this is what we have been doing. But what will we do if it takes us 24 hours to run all Harmony tests? Anyway, running regression tests could provide some confidence to our bug-fixing. We may consider it as another option. :-) I prefer to run all tests in one module instead. :) Although it can not guarentee all tests would pass, it's less likey to break build system frequently. If the fix causes other module fails, it shows the lack of tests in its module. And we should add the corresponding test in the module. Currently, Harmony regression test is a test for certain Harmony jira issue. So IMHO, running all regression tests for certain issue doesn't make sense. But whether using annotation to mark regression test is another story. At least, it doesn't have any disadvantages compared with comment way, does it? Best regards, Richard > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/9/4, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > Hi Vladimir > > > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? > > > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > > correctness of bug-fixing. > > > > Best regards, > > Richard. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mikhail > > > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > > >> thanks, Vladimir > > >> > > >> > > >> Richard > > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > > >> > >> > Hello All, > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > > >> Zakharov. > > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > > >> > >> > dimensions: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > > >> most of > > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > >> groups. e.g > > >> > ., > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that > > >> is, > > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, > > >> because > > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of > > >> tests > > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail > > >> on one > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > >> groups. e.g > > >> > ., > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", " os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > > >> convenient > > >> > way > > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > > >> support 10 > > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > > >> > MacOS, > > >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > > >> > state.broken.MacOS > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > > >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > > >> > >> > Specification > > >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for > > >> Harmony-specific > > >> > >> > implementation > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > > >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > > >> > complexity > > >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > > >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > > >>
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/4/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, my question was for what particular reason? for example? Tio verify correctness of bug-fixing IMHO all the unit, intergration, api, and regression tests should be run Running all tests are always good to verify our code quality. And I think this is what we have been doing. But what will we do if it takes us 24 hours to run all Harmony tests? Anyway, running regression tests could provide some confidence to our bug-fixing. We may consider it as another option. :-) Best regards, Richard Thanks, Mikhail 2006/9/4, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > Hi Vladimir > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > correctness of bug-fixing. > > Best regards, > Richard. > > > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > >> > >> > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > >> thanks, Vladimir > >> > >> > >> Richard > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > >> > >> > Hello All, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > >> Zakharov. > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > >> > >> > dimensions: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > >> most of > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > >> groups. e.g > >> > ., > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >> > >> > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that > >> is, > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, > >> because > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of > >> tests > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail > >> on one > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > >> groups. e.g > >> > ., > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > >> convenient > >> > way > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > >> support 10 > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > >> > MacOS, > >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > >> > state.broken.MacOS > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > >> > >> > Specification > >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for > >> Harmony-specific > >> > >> > implementation > >> > >> > > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > >> > complexity > >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >> > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the > >> verification > >> > of > >> > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > >> > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we > >> may use > >> > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Hello All, > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to > >> > figure > >> > >> another example soon. ;-) > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Richard > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Well, I think our most of ex
Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I sent my reply this afternoon, but I have not received it. (it seems there is something wrong with my smtp server). So I send it again. :-) On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based > on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression > test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at > agreeing on the difference between them :-) This is really a problem, however it might be simpler than we imagine. We are open to any discussion. ;-) Anyway, developers are required to write unit tests. If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow > tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any > automated build system can handle running the slow tests. IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we have any requirements to run only the regression tests. I think your first proposal looks fine. Platform + os + state + api/impl information are enough for all tests. We have to assure all tests pass on every platform. For quick run, developers can use their own short approach, like run single test in IDE... It's not business of TestNG. :-) Best regards, Richard Alex. > > On 04/09/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > > Hi Vladimir > > > > > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression > > > tests? > > > > > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > > > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > > > correctness of bug-fixing. > > > > > > Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) > > On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation > (smt. > > like use-case for group)? > > > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > Best regards, > > > Richard. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mikhail > > > > > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > > > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > > > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > > > >> thanks, Vladimir > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Richard > > > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > > > >> > >> > Hello All, > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the > related > > > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > > > >> Zakharov. > > > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the > following > > > 4 > > > >> > >> > dimensions: > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > > > >> most of > > > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > > > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for > one > > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > > >> groups. e.g > > > >> > ., > > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, > that > > > >> is, > > > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every > platform, > > > >> because > > > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs > of > > > >> tests > > > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > > > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only > fail > > > >> on one > > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > > >> groups. e.g > > > >> > ., > > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", " > os.broken.linux.IA64 > > > "}) > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > > > >> convenient > > > >> > way > > > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > > > >> support 10 > > > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except > for > > > >> > MacOS, > > > >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > > > >> > state.broken.MacOS > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > > > >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests
Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
I sent my reply this afternoon, but I have not received it. (it seems there is something wrong with my smtp server). So I send it again. :-) On 9/4/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at agreeing on the difference between them :-) This is really a problem, however it might be simpler than we imagine. We are open to any discussion. ;-) Anyway, developers are required to write unit tests. If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any automated build system can handle running the slow tests. IMHO, "fast or slow" may not be the key point. The question is whether we have any requirements to run only the regression tests. Best regards, Richard Alex. On 04/09/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > Hi Vladimir > > > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression > > tests? > > > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > > correctness of bug-fixing. > > > Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) > On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation (smt. > like use-case for group)? > > thanks, Vladimir > > Best regards, > > Richard. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mikhail > > > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > > >> thanks, Vladimir > > >> > > >> > > >> Richard > > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > > >> > >> > Hello All, > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > > >> Zakharov. > > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following > > 4 > > >> > >> > dimensions: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > > >> most of > > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > >> groups. e.g > > >> > ., > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that > > >> is, > > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, > > >> because > > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of > > >> tests > > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail > > >> on one > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > >> groups. e.g > > >> > ., > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", " os.broken.linux.IA64 > > "}) > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > > >> convenient > > >> > way > > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > > >> support 10 > > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > > >> > MacOS, > > >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > > >> > state.broken.MacOS > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > > >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > > >> > >> > Specification > > >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for > > >> Harmony-specific > > >> > >> > implementation > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > > >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > > >> > complexity > > >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > > >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > > >> > >> >** In
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
As we agreed earlier [1], for information reasons we include comment // Regression for HARMONY- Thanks, Mikhail [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006/9/4, Ivanov, Alexey A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >-Original Message- >From: Richard Liang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 10:56 AM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test > > > >Mikhail Loenko wrote: >> Hi Vladimir >> >> Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? >> >> I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? > >If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test >(for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the >correctness of bug-fixing. I can be used for informational purposes as well. If the test fails, you need simply re-open the associated bug provided the bug number can be easily found. Regards, Alexey. > >Best regards, >Richard. > >> >> Thanks, >> Mikhail >> >> 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: >>> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. >>> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as >>> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. >>> >>> >>> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. >>> thanks, Vladimir >>> >>> >>> Richard >>> > > thanks, Vladimir >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Richard Liang wrote: >>> > >> > Hello All, >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related >>> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei >>> Zakharov. >>> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >>> > >> > dimensions: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. >>> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, >>> most of >>> > >> > our tests should be in this group. >>> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one >>> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >>> groups. e.g >>> > ., >>> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) >>> > >> > >>> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that >>> is, >>> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. >>> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, >>> because >>> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of >>> tests >>> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. >>> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail >>> on one >>> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >>> groups. e.g >>> > ., >>> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) >>> > >> > >>> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a >>> convenient >>> > way >>> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we >>> support 10 >>> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for >>> > MacOS, >>> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use >>> > state.broken.MacOS >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl >>> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >>> > >> > Specification >>> > >> > *type.impl* - groups o
Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
+1 2006/9/4, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at agreeing on the difference between them :-) If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any automated build system can handle running the slow tests. Alex. On 04/09/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > > Hi Vladimir > > > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression > > tests? > > > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > > correctness of bug-fixing. > > > Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) > On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation (smt. > like use-case for group)? > > thanks, Vladimir > > Best regards, > > Richard. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mikhail > > > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > > >> thanks, Vladimir > > >> > > >> > > >> Richard > > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > > >> > >> > Hello All, > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > > >> Zakharov. > > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following > > 4 > > >> > >> > dimensions: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > > >> most of > > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > >> groups. e.g > > >> > ., > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that > > >> is, > > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, > > >> because > > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of > > >> tests > > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail > > >> on one > > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > > >> groups. e.g > > >> > ., > > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64 > > "}) > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > > >> convenient > > >> > way > > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > > >> support 10 > > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > > >> > MacOS, > > >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > > >> > state.broken.MacOS > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > > >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > > >> > >> > Specification > > >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for > > >> Harmony-specific > > >> > >> > implementation > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > > >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > > >> > complexity > > >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > > >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > > >> > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the > > >> verification > > >> > of > > >> > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate > > project. > > >> > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we > > >> may use > > >> > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Well, my question was for what particular reason? for example? Tio verify correctness of bug-fixing IMHO all the unit, intergration, api, and regression tests should be run Thanks, Mikhail 2006/9/4, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Mikhail Loenko wrote: > Hi Vladimir > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the correctness of bug-fixing. Best regards, Richard. > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. >> >> >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. >> thanks, Vladimir >> >> >> Richard >> > > thanks, Vladimir >> > > >> > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: >> > >> > Hello All, >> > >> > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei >> Zakharov. >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. >> > >> > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >> > >> > dimensions: >> > >> > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, >> most of >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >> groups. e.g >> > ., >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) >> > >> > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that >> is, >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, >> because >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of >> tests >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail >> on one >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >> groups. e.g >> > ., >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) >> > >> > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a >> convenient >> > way >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we >> support 10 >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for >> > MacOS, >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use >> > state.broken.MacOS >> > >> > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >> > >> > Specification >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for >> Harmony-specific >> > >> > implementation >> > >> > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. >> > >> > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in >> > complexity >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >> > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the >> verification >> > of >> > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. >> > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). >> > >> > >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we >> may use >> > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello All, >> > >> >> > >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to >> > figure >> > >> another example soon. ;-) >> > >> >> > >> Best regards, >> > >> Richard >> > >> > >> > >> > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of >> > >> > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG >> to add >> > a >> > >> > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to >> specify >> > >> > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your >> comments >> > >> > or suggestion. ;-) >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Richard Liang >> > >> China Software Development Lab, IBM >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> - >> > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apac
RE: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
>-Original Message- >From: Richard Liang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 10:56 AM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test > > > >Mikhail Loenko wrote: >> Hi Vladimir >> >> Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? >> >> I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? > >If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test >(for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the >correctness of bug-fixing. I can be used for informational purposes as well. If the test fails, you need simply re-open the associated bug provided the bug number can be easily found. Regards, Alexey. > >Best regards, >Richard. > >> >> Thanks, >> Mikhail >> >> 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: >>> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. >>> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as >>> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. >>> >>> >>> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. >>> thanks, Vladimir >>> >>> >>> Richard >>> > > thanks, Vladimir >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> Richard Liang wrote: >>> > >> > Hello All, >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related >>> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei >>> Zakharov. >>> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >>> > >> > dimensions: >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. >>> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, >>> most of >>> > >> > our tests should be in this group. >>> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one >>> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >>> groups. e.g >>> > ., >>> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) >>> > >> > >>> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that >>> is, >>> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. >>> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, >>> because >>> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of >>> tests >>> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. >>> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail >>> on one >>> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >>> groups. e.g >>> > ., >>> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) >>> > >> > >>> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a >>> convenient >>> > way >>> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we >>> support 10 >>> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for >>> > MacOS, >>> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use >>> > state.broken.MacOS >>> > >> > >>> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl >>> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >>> > >> > Specification >>> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for >>> Harmony-specific >>> > >> > implementation >>> > >> > >>> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. >>> > >> > >>
Re: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
IMNSO it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily partition the tests based on a moniker, such as 'integration test', 'unit test', 'regression test' etc. For one thing, developers are generally not good at agreeing on the difference between them :-) If you've got fast and slow tests, then have a group for fast and slow tests. Then you can choose to just run the fast tests, and any automated build system can handle running the slow tests. Alex. On 04/09/06, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mikhail Loenko wrote: > > Hi Vladimir > > > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression > tests? > > If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test > (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the > correctness of bug-fixing. Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation (smt. like use-case for group)? thanks, Vladimir Best regards, > Richard. > > > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail > > > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. > >> > >> > >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. > >> thanks, Vladimir > >> > >> > >> Richard > >> > > thanks, Vladimir > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > >> > >> > Hello All, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei > >> Zakharov. > >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following > 4 > >> > >> > dimensions: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, > >> most of > >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. > >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > >> groups. e.g > >> > ., > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >> > >> > > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that > >> is, > >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, > >> because > >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of > >> tests > >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail > >> on one > >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the > >> groups. e.g > >> > ., > >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64 > "}) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a > >> convenient > >> > way > >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we > >> support 10 > >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > >> > MacOS, > >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > >> > state.broken.MacOS > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > >> > >> > Specification > >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for > >> Harmony-specific > >> > >> > implementation > >> > >> > > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > >> > complexity > >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >> > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the > >> verification > >> > of > >> > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate > project. > >> > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we > >> may use > >> > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Hello All, > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to > >> > figure > >> > >> another examp
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 9/4/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mikhail Loenko wrote: > Hi Vladimir > > Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? > > I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the correctness of bug-fixing. Thanks Richard. It is exactly what I want to say :) On the other hand may be all proposed groups need similar explanation (smt. like use-case for group)? thanks, Vladimir Best regards, Richard. > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: >> > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. >> > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as >> > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. >> >> >> Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. >> thanks, Vladimir >> >> >> Richard >> > > thanks, Vladimir >> > > >> > > >> > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: >> > >> > Hello All, >> > >> > >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related >> > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei >> Zakharov. >> > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. >> > >> > >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >> > >> > dimensions: >> > >> > >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. >> > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, >> most of >> > >> > our tests should be in this group. >> > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >> groups. e.g >> > ., >> > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) >> > >> > >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that >> is, >> > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. >> > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, >> because >> > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of >> tests >> > >> > or implementation to make them pass. >> > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail >> on one >> > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the >> groups. e.g >> > ., >> > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64 "}) >> > >> > >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a >> convenient >> > way >> > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we >> support 10 >> > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for >> > MacOS, >> > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use >> > state.broken.MacOS >> > >> > >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl >> > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >> > >> > Specification >> > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for >> Harmony-specific >> > >> > implementation >> > >> > >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. >> > >> > >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, >> > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in >> > complexity >> > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) >> > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >> > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the >> verification >> > of >> > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. >> > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). >> > >> > >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we >> may use >> > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello All, >> > >> >> > >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to >> > figure >> > >> another example soon. ;-) >> > >> >> > >> Best regards, >> > >> Richard >> > >> > >> > >> > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of >> > >> > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG >> to add >> > a >> > >> > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to >> specify >> > >> > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your >> comments >> > >> > or suggestion. ;-) >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> Richard Liang >> > >> China Software Development Lab, IBM >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> - >> > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Mikhail Loenko wrote: Hi Vladimir Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? If running all tests takes up much time, running all regression test (for one particular version) may be a convenient way to verify the correctness of bug-fixing. Best regards, Richard. Thanks, Mikhail 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. thanks, Vladimir Richard > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > >> > Hello All, > >> > > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > >> > > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > >> > dimensions: > >> > > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > >> > our tests should be in this group. > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g > ., > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >> > > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > >> > > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g > ., > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > >> > > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient > way > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > MacOS, > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > state.broken.MacOS > >> > > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > >> > Specification > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > >> > implementation > >> > > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > >> > > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > complexity > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification > of > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > >> > > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hello All, > >> > >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to > figure > >> another example soon. ;-) > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Richard > >> > > >> > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > >> > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add > a > >> > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > >> > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > >> > > >> > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > >> > or suggestion. ;-) > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Richard Liang > >> China Software Development Lab, IBM > >> > >> > >> > >> - > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mai
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Hi Vladimir Could you please decribe for what purpose it will be used? I mean why one might have to either exclude or run only regression tests? Thanks, Mikhail 2006/8/30, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. > Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as > *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. thanks, Vladimir Richard > > thanks, Vladimir > > > > > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Richard Liang wrote: > >> > Hello All, > >> > > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > >> > > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > >> > dimensions: > >> > > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > >> > our tests should be in this group. > >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g > ., > >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >> > > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > >> > > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > >> > or implementation to make them pass. > >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g > ., > >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > >> > > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient > way > >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for > MacOS, > >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use > state.broken.MacOS > >> > > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > >> > Specification > >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > >> > implementation > >> > > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > >> > > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in > complexity > >> > as moving through test cycle. ) > >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification > of > >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > >> > > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Hello All, > >> > >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to > figure > >> another example soon. ;-) > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Richard > >> > > >> > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > >> > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add > a > >> > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > >> > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > >> > > >> > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > >> > or suggestion. ;-) > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Richard Liang > >> China Software Development Lab, IBM > >> > >> > >> > >> - > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Stepan Mishura wrote: On 8/25/06, Richard Liang wrote: Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS If a test is marked as *state.broken.MacOS* then it sounds like the test/implementation should be fixed. IMO we should use tag os. to define explicitly valid platforms for the test so in this particular case we should use 9 os.s Thank you, Stepan. This sounds reasonable, we should explicitly list the valid platforms. Best regards, Richard 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). Mixing different types of testing into one test-file doesn't look good for me. I'd separate such tests by placing into different directories/packages. Thanks, Stepan. If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: I'm just catching up after a few days of travel. Have you begun sketching this out on the wiki? Sorry for my late reply. Just spent a few days looking after my three-month-old daughter ;-) I have just recorded what we have discussed on our wiki[1]. [1]. http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention Best regards, Richard geir Richard Liang wrote: Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 8/30/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Vladimir Ivanov wrote: > Also some tag for regression tests should be added. Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. Yes, I do. While tests can have more than one group it will enough. thanks, Vladimir Richard > thanks, Vladimir > > > On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Richard Liang wrote: >> > Hello All, >> > >> > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related >> > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. >> > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. >> > >> > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >> > dimensions: >> > >> > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of >> > our tests should be in this group. >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g ., >> > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, >> > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. >> > >> > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because >> > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests >> > or implementation to make them pass. >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one >> > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g ., >> > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way >> > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 >> > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, >> > instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS >> > >> > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >> > Specification >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific >> > implementation >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. >> > >> > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, >> > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity >> > as moving through test cycle. ) >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of >> > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. >> > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). >> > >> > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use >> > TestNG groups to select the tests: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hello All, >> >> I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure >> another example soon. ;-) >> >> Best regards, >> Richard >> > >> > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of >> > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a >> > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify >> > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. >> > >> > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments >> > or suggestion. ;-) >> > >> >> -- >> Richard Liang >> China Software Development Lab, IBM >> >> >> >> - >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 8/25/06, Richard Liang wrote: Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS If a test is marked as *state.broken.MacOS* then it sounds like the test/implementation should be fixed. IMO we should use tag os. to define explicitly valid platforms for the test so in this particular case we should use 9 os.s 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). Mixing different types of testing into one test-file doesn't look good for me. I'd separate such tests by placing into different directories/packages. Thanks, Stepan. If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Can you explain how you expect to see these used? I'm not arguing, but people think of regression tests different ways... geir Vladimir Ivanov wrote: Also some tag for regression tests should be added. thanks, Vladimir On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Richard Liang wrote: > Hello All, > > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > dimensions: > > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > our tests should be in this group. > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > or implementation to make them pass. > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, > instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > Specification > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > implementation > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity > as moving through test cycle. ) >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure another example soon. ;-) Best regards, Richard > > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > or suggestion. ;-) > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
I'm just catching up after a few days of travel. Have you begun sketching this out on the wiki? geir Richard Liang wrote: Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Paulex Yang wrote: Richard Liang wrote: Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. I suggest to separate the CPU arch with OS, they are actually different things, and we probably will have tests written for all 64bits arch, or for all Linux OS. Thanks a lot, Paulex. I agree. Separating os and arch make our groups more flexible. I will update the grouping proposal soon to integrate your and others' suggestion. Best regards, Richard 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Richard Liang wrote: Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. I suggest to separate the CPU arch with OS, they are actually different things, and we probably will have tests written for all 64bits arch, or for all Linux OS. 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Vladimir Ivanov wrote: Also some tag for regression tests should be added. Yes. Do you think we could annotate regression test as *level.regression*? Thanks a lot. Richard thanks, Vladimir On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Richard Liang wrote: > Hello All, > > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > dimensions: > > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > our tests should be in this group. > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > or implementation to make them pass. > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, > instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > Specification > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > implementation > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity > as moving through test cycle. ) >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure another example soon. ;-) Best regards, Richard > > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > or suggestion. ;-) > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Richard Liang wrote: Tony Wu wrote: I think we can treat something like *os.any*,*type.api* as default groups.Itwill make our logic more clear and bring convenience to testcase writing :) for example, an os. group indicates that it is designed for only. If there is no group like os. here, this is a *os.any* test. so if we want to run all *api* tests on *win32* platform which is *not broken*, we could write the testng.xml like this: Hello Tony, It's a good idea. However, we shall define a "default" group which means "os.any, type.impl, level.unit". Thanks a lot. And even the "default" group is not necessary by removing the "name=".*" /> " Richard Best regards, Richard 2006/8/29, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Also some tag for regression tests should be added. thanks, Vladimir On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Richard Liang wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > > > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > > dimensions: > > > > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > > our tests should be in this group. > > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > > > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > > or implementation to make them pass. > > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way > > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, > > instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > > > > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > > Specification > > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > > implementation > > > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > > > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity > > as moving through test cycle. ) > >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of > > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > > > > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > > TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure > another example soon. ;-) > > Best regards, > Richard > > > > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a > > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > > > > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > > or suggestion. ;-) > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Tony Wu wrote: I think we can treat something like *os.any*,*type.api* as default groups.Itwill make our logic more clear and bring convenience to testcase writing :) for example, an os. group indicates that it is designed for only. If there is no group like os. here, this is a *os.any* test. so if we want to run all *api* tests on *win32* platform which is *not broken*, we could write the testng.xml like this: Hello Tony, It's a good idea. However, we shall define a "default" group which means "os.any, type.impl, level.unit". Thanks a lot. Best regards, Richard 2006/8/29, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Also some tag for regression tests should be added. thanks, Vladimir On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Richard Liang wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > > > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > > dimensions: > > > > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > > our tests should be in this group. > > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > > > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > > or implementation to make them pass. > > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way > > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, > > instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > > > > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > > Specification > > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > > implementation > > > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > > > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity > > as moving through test cycle. ) > >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of > > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > > > > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > > TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure > another example soon. ;-) > > Best regards, > Richard > > > > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a > > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > > > > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > > or suggestion. ;-) > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
I think we can treat something like *os.any*,*type.api* as default groups.Itwill make our logic more clear and bring convenience to testcase writing :) for example, an os. group indicates that it is designed for only. If there is no group like os. here, this is a *os.any* test. so if we want to run all *api* tests on *win32* platform which is *not broken*, we could write the testng.xml like this: 2006/8/29, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Also some tag for regression tests should be added. thanks, Vladimir On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Richard Liang wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > > > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > > dimensions: > > > > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > > our tests should be in this group. > > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > > > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > > > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > > or implementation to make them pass. > > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way > > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, > > instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > > > > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > > Specification > > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > > implementation > > > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > > > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity > > as moving through test cycle. ) > >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. > >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of > > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > > > > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > > TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure > another example soon. ;-) > > Best regards, > Richard > > > > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a > > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > > > > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > > or suggestion. ;-) > > > > -- > Richard Liang > China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > > - > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Tony Wu China Software Development Lab, IBM
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Also some tag for regression tests should be added. thanks, Vladimir On 8/28/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Richard Liang wrote: > Hello All, > > Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related > threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. > All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. > > IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 > dimensions: > > 1) [Platform] os.any, os. > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of > our tests should be in this group. > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, > tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > > 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because > of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests > or implementation to make them pass. > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one > specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., > @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way > to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 > platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, > instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > > 3) [Test type] type.api , type.impl > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java > Specification > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific > implementation > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > > 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, > level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity > as moving through test cycle. ) >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of > the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. > e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). > > If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use > TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure another example soon. ;-) Best regards, Richard > > Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of > {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a > new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify > the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > > Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments > or suggestion. ;-) > -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Richard Liang wrote: Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Hello All, I'm sorry. It seems that the example does not work. I will try to figure another example soon. ;-) Best regards, Richard Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
>-Original Message- >From: Andrew Zhang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 1:06 PM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test > >On 8/28/06, Ivanov, Alexey A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >-Original Message- >> >From: Richard Liang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 7:18 PM >> >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >Subject: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test >> > >> >Hello All, >> > >> >Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads >> >which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of >> them >> >are good discussion about TestNG groups. >> > >> >IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >> >dimensions: >> > >> >1) [Platform] os.any, os. >> > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of >> our >> >tests should be in this group. >> > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one >> specific >> >platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., >> >@Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) >> > >> >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, >> >tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. >> > >> >2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. >> > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because >> >of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or >> >implementation to make them pass. >> > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one >> >specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., >> >@Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) >> > >> > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way >> >to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 >> >platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, >> >instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS >> > >> >3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl >> > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >> >Specification >> > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific >> >implementation >> > >> > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. >> > >> >4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, >> >level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity >> >as moving through test cycle. ) >> >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >> >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of >> >the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., >> >harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). >> >> 5) [Environment] env.display, env.headless >> To distinguish AWT and Swing tests which need a display to run, and >> those which don't, as Mark proposed [1]. > > >Will display option be passed manually as an argument to TestNG, or >detected automatically when running test? I think it should be passed as an argument to TestNG. Ant script can be setup to detect the state by default, with the ability to override it from the command line. Regards, Alexey. > >Regards, >> Alexey. >> >> [1] >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200608.mb >> ox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > >> >If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use >> >TestNG groups to select the tests: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of >> {"os.any", >> >"type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option >> >"-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test >> >groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. >> > >> >Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments >> or >> >suggestion. ;-) >> > >> >-- >> >Richard Liang >> >China Software Development Lab, IBM >> > >> > >> > >> >- >> >Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -- >> Alexey A. Ivanov >> Intel Middleware Product Division >> >> - >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > >-- >Andrew Zhang >China Software Development Lab, IBM -- Alexey A. Ivanov Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
On 8/28/06, Ivanov, Alexey A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >-Original Message- >From: Richard Liang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 7:18 PM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test > >Hello All, > >Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads >which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them >are good discussion about TestNG groups. > >IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >dimensions: > >1) [Platform] os.any, os. > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our >tests should be in this group. > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific >platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., >@Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, >tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > >2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because >of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or >implementation to make them pass. > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one >specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., >@Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way >to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 >platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, >instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > >3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >Specification > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific >implementation > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > >4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, >level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity >as moving through test cycle. ) >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of >the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., >harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). 5) [Environment] env.display, env.headless To distinguish AWT and Swing tests which need a display to run, and those which don't, as Mark proposed [1]. Will display option be passed manually as an argument to TestNG, or detected automatically when running test? Regards, Alexey. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200608.mb ox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use >TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > > >Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", >"type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option >"-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test >groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > >Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or >suggestion. ;-) > >-- >Richard Liang >China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > >- >Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Alexey A. Ivanov Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
RE: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
>-Original Message- >From: Richard Liang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 7:18 PM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: [classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test > >Hello All, > >Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads >which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them >are good discussion about TestNG groups. > >IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 >dimensions: > >1) [Platform] os.any, os. > *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our >tests should be in this group. > *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific >platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., >@Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) > >** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, >tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. > >2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. > *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because >of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or >implementation to make them pass. > *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one >specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., >@Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) > > **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way >to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 >platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, >instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS > >3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl > *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java >Specification > *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific >implementation > > ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. > >4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, >level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity >as moving through test cycle. ) >** A test may be in more than one of the groups. >** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of >the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., >harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). 5) [Environment] env.display, env.headless To distinguish AWT and Swing tests which need a display to run, and those which don't, as Mark proposed [1]. Regards, Alexey. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200608.mb ox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use >TestNG groups to select the tests: > > > > > > > > > > > >Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", >"type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option >"-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test >groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. > >Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or >suggestion. ;-) > >-- >Richard Liang >China Software Development Lab, IBM > > > >- >Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Alexey A. Ivanov Intel Middleware Product Division - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[classlib][TestNG] groups of Harmony test
Hello All, Now let's talk about the TestNG groups. I have read the related threads which posted by George, Vladimir Ivanov and Alexei Zakharov. All of them are good discussion about TestNG groups. IMHO, we may define Harmony test groups according the following 4 dimensions: 1) [Platform] os.any, os. *os.any* - group of tests which pass on any platform. IMHO, most of our tests should be in this group. *os.* - group of tests which are designed for one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"os.win.IA32", "os.linux.IA32"}) ** os.any and os. are mutually exclusive, that is, tests in os.any group should not be in os.win.IA32. 2) [Test state] state.broken, state.broken. *state.broken* - group of tests which fail on every platform, because of bugs of tests or implementation. We need to fix the bugs of tests or implementation to make them pass. *state.broken.* - groups of test which only fail on one specific platform. A test may be in more than one of the groups. e.g., @Test(groups={"state.broken.linux.IA32", "os.broken.linux.IA64"}) **state.broken. group may be used as a convenient way to indicate that a test is platform-specific. e.g., If we support 10 platforms, and one test are designed for 9 platforms except for MacOS, instead of list 9 os., we can just use state.broken.MacOS 3) [Test type] type.api, type.impl *type.api* - group of tests which are tests for APIs in the Java Specification *type.impl* - groups of tests which are tests for Harmony-specific implementation ** type.api and type.impl are also mutually exclusive. 4) [Test Level] level.unit, level.integration, level.system, level.stress, etc. (Levels of Test refer to the increase in complexity as moving through test cycle. ) ** A test may be in more than one of the groups. ** In fact, some tests such as System tests are the verification of the entire system. Maybe we'll put them into a separate project. e.g., harmony/enhanced/SVT (System Verification Test). If we want to run all the unit test for APIs on windows, we may use TestNG groups to select the tests: Well, I think our most of existing tests are in the groups of {"os.any", "type.api", "level.unit"}, and I have asked TestNG to add a new option "-groups" for its JUnitConverter which allow us to specify the test groups when migrate from JUnit test to TestNG test. Thanks for reading so far, and I will highly appreciate your comments or suggestion. ;-) -- Richard Liang China Software Development Lab, IBM - Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]