Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
i'll commit it within the next days. we can start e.g. with: org.apache.deltaspike.modules deltaspike-test-control and keep "junit" in the corresponding package-names. once we add e.g. support for testng, we can think about the different possibilities. e.g. if we would provide different modules, deltaspike-test-control would still contain @TestControl,... (-> we would just move the implementation for junit (without changing it) -> there would be just a new module). regards, gerhard 2013/12/2 Christian Kaltepoth > I really like this. So +1 for adding it. Great work Gerhard. :) > > And I agree with Mark that we should also support TestNG later. So the > module name should indicate that it is JUnit specific. > > Christian > > > 2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek > > > hi @ all, > > > > please have a look at [1]. > > > > it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. > > however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think > > about adding it to deltaspike. > > (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can > > simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > [1] > > > http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html > > > > > > -- > Christian Kaltepoth > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
well I asked cause I used it and found something to replace in junit for everything (all you speak about) Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/12/2 Mark Struberg : > I use it ;P > > Nah, testNG is really cool if you have a bit of a mixture of pure unit tests > with a slight touch of integration testing. groups, parallel executions, > shuffled executions, etc. _really_ useful stuff! > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > - Original Message - >> From: Romain Manni-Bucau >> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 19:59 >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control >> >> Which gain supporting testng? >> >> Testng supports junit iirc >> Le 2 déc. 2013 18:11, "Christian Kaltepoth" >> a >> écrit : >> >> >>> I really like this. So +1 for adding it. Great work Gerhard. :) >>> >>> And I agree with Mark that we should also support TestNG later. So the >>> module name should indicate that it is JUnit specific. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> >>> 2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek >>> >>> > hi @ all, >>> > >>> > please have a look at [1]. >>> > >>> > it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. >>> > however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we >> can think >>> > about adding it to deltaspike. >>> > (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure >> we can >>> > simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) >>> > >>> > regards, >>> > gerhard >>> > >>> > [1] >>> > >>> http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christian Kaltepoth >>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
I use it ;P Nah, testNG is really cool if you have a bit of a mixture of pure unit tests with a slight touch of integration testing. groups, parallel executions, shuffled executions, etc. _really_ useful stuff! LieGrue, strub - Original Message - > From: Romain Manni-Bucau > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 19:59 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control > > Which gain supporting testng? > > Testng supports junit iirc > Le 2 déc. 2013 18:11, "Christian Kaltepoth" > a > écrit : > > >> I really like this. So +1 for adding it. Great work Gerhard. :) >> >> And I agree with Mark that we should also support TestNG later. So the >> module name should indicate that it is JUnit specific. >> >> Christian >> >> >> 2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek >> >> > hi @ all, >> > >> > please have a look at [1]. >> > >> > it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. >> > however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we > can think >> > about adding it to deltaspike. >> > (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure > we can >> > simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) >> > >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > [1] >> > >> http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Christian Kaltepoth >> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal >> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
Which gain supporting testng? Testng supports junit iirc Le 2 déc. 2013 18:11, "Christian Kaltepoth" a écrit : > I really like this. So +1 for adding it. Great work Gerhard. :) > > And I agree with Mark that we should also support TestNG later. So the > module name should indicate that it is JUnit specific. > > Christian > > > 2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek > > > hi @ all, > > > > please have a look at [1]. > > > > it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. > > however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think > > about adding it to deltaspike. > > (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can > > simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > [1] > > > http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html > > > > > > -- > Christian Kaltepoth > Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal > GitHub: https://github.com/chkal >
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
I really like this. So +1 for adding it. Great work Gerhard. :) And I agree with Mark that we should also support TestNG later. So the module name should indicate that it is JUnit specific. Christian 2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek > hi @ all, > > please have a look at [1]. > > it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. > however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think > about adding it to deltaspike. > (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can > simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) > > regards, > gerhard > > [1] > http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html > -- Christian Kaltepoth Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
we have something like it in openejb and it is really nicer than arquillian for real apps and unit tests since you don't need deployment or heavy enrichments processes Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau 2013/12/2 John D. Ament : > I'd personally prefer to see this as an Arquillian add on, especially > since the embedded containers have such little over head. > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> >> >> yup +1 >> >> TestNG support would also be handy later. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> From: Thomas Andraschko >>>To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >>>Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 11:22 >>>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control >>> >>> >>>+1 >>>simple and nice approach >>> >>> >>> >>>2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek >>> >>>> hi @ all, >>>> >>>> please have a look at [1]. >>>> >>>> it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. >>>> however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think >>>> about adding it to deltaspike. >>>> (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can >>>> simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> gerhard >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html >>>> >>> >>> >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
Different purpose. For arquillian to be useful for such business apps it would be required to support multiple 'deployment groups' which would share a single @Deployment for many unit test classes. That would be utter cool, but doesn't exist yet... LieGrue, strub - Original Message - > From: John D. Ament > To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 13:08 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control > > I'd personally prefer to see this as an Arquillian add on, especially > since the embedded containers have such little over head. > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> >> >> yup +1 >> >> TestNG support would also be handy later. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >>> ________ >>> From: Thomas Andraschko >>> To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >>> Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 11:22 >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> simple and nice approach >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek >>> >>>> hi @ all, >>>> >>>> please have a look at [1]. >>>> >>>> it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. >>>> however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> > we can think >>>> about adding it to deltaspike. >>>> (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for > sure we can >>>> simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> gerhard >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> > http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html >>>> >>> >>> >>> >
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
hi john, the basic idea of this thin/simple integration is to be independent of arquillian. regards, gerhard 2013/12/2 John D. Ament > I'd personally prefer to see this as an Arquillian add on, especially > since the embedded containers have such little over head. > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > > > yup +1 > > > > TestNG support would also be handy later. > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> From: Thomas Andraschko > >>To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org > >>Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 11:22 > >>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control > >> > >> > >>+1 > >>simple and nice approach > >> > >> > >> > >>2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek > >> > >>> hi @ all, > >>> > >>> please have a look at [1]. > >>> > >>> it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. > >>> however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can > think > >>> about adding it to deltaspike. > >>> (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we > can > >>> simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) > >>> > >>> regards, > >>> gerhard > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html > >>> > >> > >> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
I'd personally prefer to see this as an Arquillian add on, especially since the embedded containers have such little over head. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > yup +1 > > TestNG support would also be handy later. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >> >> From: Thomas Andraschko >>To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >>Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 11:22 >>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control >> >> >>+1 >>simple and nice approach >> >> >> >>2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek >> >>> hi @ all, >>> >>> please have a look at [1]. >>> >>> it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. >>> however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think >>> about adding it to deltaspike. >>> (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can >>> simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> [1] >>> http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html >>> >> >> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
yup +1 TestNG support would also be handy later. LieGrue, strub > > From: Thomas Andraschko >To: dev@deltaspike.apache.org >Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013, 11:22 >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control > > >+1 >simple and nice approach > > > >2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek > >> hi @ all, >> >> please have a look at [1]. >> >> it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. >> however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think >> about adding it to deltaspike. >> (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can >> simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> [1] >> http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
+1 simple and nice approach 2013/12/2 Gerhard Petracek > hi @ all, > > please have a look at [1]. > > it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. > however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think > about adding it to deltaspike. > (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can > simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) > > regards, > gerhard > > [1] > http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html >
[DISCUSS] unit-test cdi-control
hi @ all, please have a look at [1]. it's just a first (and quick) draft based on major use-cases. however, it's working already and the api/spi is minimal -> we can think about adding it to deltaspike. (it's already prepared for additional use-cases, however, for sure we can simplify/change/improve any part of it easily.) regards, gerhard [1] http://os890.blogspot.com/2013/12/add-on-cdi-tests-with-deltaspike-05.html
