Re: [Testing Convention] Keep tests small and fast
[SNIP]
IMHO, this relates to stress tests and load tests only. This means that we
shouldn't put such kind of tests in a 'regular test suite'. The 'regular
test suite' is used to verify regressions only. Returning back to a test's
size, I think it is up to developer - we can only recommend not to test all
functionality in one test case and split independent parts into a number of
test case. But IMHO we can not fully avoid creating 'redundant code', such
as, Assert 1:, Assert 2: . For example, if there is a constructor
with several parameters and get-methods to return provided parameters then I
wouldn't create 3 tests instead of the next one:
public void test_Ctor() {
Ctor c = new Ctor(param1, param2, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 1, param1, c.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 2, param2, c.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 3, param3, c.getParam2());
}
Hi folks,
I actully agree with Stepan. It all depends on the edvelopers since
the people do what is convenient and generally makes sense. However
from the tester's point of view (my one, you can guess :) ) when you
check several assertions in the test (like in
org.apache.harmony.tests.java.util.jar.test_putLjava_lang_ObjectLjava_lang_Object)
if one assertion is broken you won't see what's going on with others
unless you get this one fixed.
BTW do we have any way to include stress/reliability tests in the project?
Thanks,
Alex Orlov.
Intel Middleware Products Division
Thanks,
Stepan.
Thanks a lot.
Richard Liang wrote:
Dears,
As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create
one with my rough ideas
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can
document our decision timely clearly.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Gentlemen!
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote:
On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote:
On 3/27/06, mr C wrote:
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote:
[SNIP]
Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP]
Now let me support [SNIP].
The ASF front page says
(...) The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative,
consensus
based development process, (...)
That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
How should we organize our tests? has now been the subject of
debate for
*months* around here, and every now and then much of the same
discussion is
rehashed.
And we're making progress. IMO, it really helped my thinking to
distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec
tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the
whole o.a.h.test.* issue.
I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where
java.util.HashMapTest fits.
I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.
Now, I see clearly.
I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on
(such as,
we don't know, but we can find out, or we have different ideas on
that,
but there's room for both, or this way of doing things is not the
best one
but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work
anyway)
than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of
disagreements.
Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that apache projects are
characterized by a *productive* development process. Its just my
feeling that
for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive.
You don't think we're making progress through these discussions?
Think about it. Is your time better spent convincing lots of other
people to do
their testing differently, or is it better spent writing better tests?
The issue isn't about convincing someone to do it differently, but
understanding the full scope of problems, that we need to embrace
both approaches, because they are apples and oranges, and we need
both apples and oranges. They aren't exclusionary.
geir
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
Re: [Testing Convention] Keep tests small and fast
Stepan Mishura wrote:
On 3/30/06, Richard Liang wrote:
Dears,
I notice that we put all the test code into one big test method (for
example,
org.apache.harmony.tests.java.util.jar.test_putLjava_lang_ObjectLjava_lang_Object
).
This way we will lose some benefits of junit and even unit test:
1. Test code cannot share configuration code through setUp and tearDown
2. We have to add redundant code, such as, Assert 1:, Assert 2:
to make the test results more comprehensive
3. It makes the test code more complex
Shall we just use small test cases?
You may want to read the description at:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-2000/jw-1221-junit_p.html
*Keep tests small and fast*
Executing every test for the entire system shouldn't take hours. Indeed,
developers will more consistently run tests that execute quickly.
Without regularly running the full set of tests, it will be difficult to
validate the entire system when changes are made. Errors will start to
creep back in, and the benefits of unit testing will be lost. This means
stress tests and load tests for single classes or small frameworks of
classes shouldn't be run as part of the unit test suite; they should be
executed separately.
Hi Richard,
IMHO, this relates to stress tests and load tests only. This means that we
shouldn't put such kind of tests in a 'regular test suite'. The 'regular
test suite' is used to verify regressions only. Returning back to a test's
size, I think it is up to developer - we can only recommend not to test all
functionality in one test case and split independent parts into a number of
test case. But IMHO we can not fully avoid creating 'redundant code', such
as, Assert 1:, Assert 2: . For example, if there is a constructor
with several parameters and get-methods to return provided parameters then I
wouldn't create 3 tests instead of the next one:
public void test_Ctor() {
Ctor c = new Ctor(param1, param2, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 1, param1, c.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 2, param2, c.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 3, param3, c.getParam2());
}
Hello Stepan,
Sometimes we do have to use several assert to check the expected
situation. It's true. However, what I mean is, let's take your
test_Ctor as an example, if we want to design many test cases to
verify the behavior of the constructor, the number of assert may
increase dramatically.
Do you need just one test method or 4 methods for the following test?
public void test_Ctor() {
Ctor c = new Ctor(param1, param2, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 1, param1, c.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 2, param2, c.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 3, param3, c.getParam2());
Ctor c2 = new Ctor(null, param2, param3);
assertNull(Assert 4, c2.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 5, param2, c2.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 6, param3, c3.getParam2());
Ctor c3 = new Ctor(param1, null, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 7, param1, c3.getParam1());
assertNull(Assert 8, c3.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 9, param3, c3.getParam2());
Ctor c4 = new Ctor(param1, param2, null);
assertEquals(Assert 10, param1, c4.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 11, param2, c4.getParam3());
assertNull(Assert 12, c4.getParam2());
}
Thanks,
Stepan.
Thanks a lot.
Richard Liang wrote:
Dears,
As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create
one with my rough ideas
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can
document our decision timely clearly.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Gentlemen!
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote:
On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote:
On 3/27/06, mr C wrote:
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote:
[SNIP]
Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP]
Now let me support [SNIP].
The ASF front page says
(...) The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative,
consensus
based development process, (...)
That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
How should we organize our tests? has now been the subject of
debate for
*months* around here, and every now and then much of the same
discussion is
rehashed.
And we're making progress. IMO, it really helped my thinking to
distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec
tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the
whole o.a.h.test.* issue.
I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where
java.util.HashMapTest fits.
I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.
Now, I see clearly.
I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on
(such as,
we don't know, but we can find out, or we have different ideas on
Re: [Testing Convention] Keep tests small and fast
I'm not too familiar with the Harmony code yet, but since I've had a bunch of experience on large projects I thought I'd toss my $.02 in here. 1) When dealing with a project as large and with as much surface area as a VM, your unit tests for the entire project will probably take several hours to run. The trade off for heavy coverage is totally worth it, even if it takes a long time. It does indeed mean you need to manage it. 2) We tended to manage this by breaking up unit tests into Build Verification Tests(BVTs) and Developer Regression Tests(DRTs). Developers would be required to run DRTs before checking in, and BVTs would be run for every build (or with coninous integration, they would be constantly running every few hours). 3) In the largest projects I've been on DRTs would be broken up further to be on a component level. When you changed a component that other components depended on, we tended to depend on the good sense of the developer to run the DRTs for the related components (and depended on the CI or daily build to catch the problems that slipped through that net.) We set a rule that DRTs for a given component could never take longer than 10 minutes to run. Again, I'm sorry if this is irrelevent (since I'm not familiar enough with the Harmony code), but this process was reasonably effective for us. The real pain ends up being how often changes in core code broke downstream components, but failing tests are only a symptom (and early warning system) for this. The problem is that for core components, it was often important for the developers to run rather a rather long suite of tests before checking in, simply because there were so many components using their pieces. We just bit that bullet. --Will Richard Liang wrote: Dears, I notice that we put all the test code into one big test method (for example, org.apache.harmony.tests.java.util.jar.test_putLjava_lang_ObjectLjava_lang_Object). This way we will lose some benefits of junit and even unit test: 1. Test code cannot share configuration code through setUp and tearDown 2. We have to add redundant code, such as, Assert 1:, Assert 2: to make the test results more comprehensive 3. It makes the test code more complex Shall we just use small test cases? You may want to read the description at: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-2000/jw-1221-junit_p.html *Keep tests small and fast* Executing every test for the entire system shouldn't take hours. Indeed, developers will more consistently run tests that execute quickly. Without regularly running the full set of tests, it will be difficult to validate the entire system when changes are made. Errors will start to creep back in, and the benefits of unit testing will be lost. This means stress tests and load tests for single classes or small frameworks of classes shouldn't be run as part of the unit test suite; they should be executed separately. Thanks a lot. Richard Liang wrote: Dears, As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create one with my rough ideas http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can document our decision timely clearly. Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Leo Simons wrote: Gentlemen! On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote: On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote: On 3/27/06, mr C wrote: [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote: [SNIP] Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP] Now let me support [SNIP]. The ASF front page says (...) The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, consensus based development process, (...) That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing. How should we organize our tests? has now been the subject of debate for *months* around here, and every now and then much of the same discussion is rehashed. And we're making progress. IMO, it really helped my thinking to distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the whole o.a.h.test.* issue. I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where java.util.HashMapTest fits. I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me. Now, I see clearly. I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on (such as, we don't know, but we can find out, or we have different ideas on that, but there's room for both, or this way of doing things is not the best one but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work anyway) than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of disagreements. Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that apache projects are characterized by a *productive* development process. Its just my feeling that for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive. You don't think we're making progress through these discussions? Think
Re: [Testing Convention] Keep tests small and fast
On 3/30/06, Richard Liang wrote:
Stepan Mishura wrote:
On 3/30/06, Richard Liang wrote:
[SNIP]
IMHO, this relates to stress tests and load tests only. This means
that we
shouldn't put such kind of tests in a 'regular test suite'. The 'regular
test suite' is used to verify regressions only. Returning back to a
test's
size, I think it is up to developer - we can only recommend not to test
all
functionality in one test case and split independent parts into a number
of
test case. But IMHO we can not fully avoid creating 'redundant code',
such
as, Assert 1:, Assert 2: . For example, if there is a
constructor
with several parameters and get-methods to return provided parameters
then I
wouldn't create 3 tests instead of the next one:
public void test_Ctor() {
Ctor c = new Ctor(param1, param2, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 1, param1, c.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 2, param2, c.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 3, param3, c.getParam2());
}
Hello Stepan,
Sometimes we do have to use several assert to check the expected
situation. It's true. However, what I mean is, let's take your
test_Ctor as an example, if we want to design many test cases to
verify the behavior of the constructor, the number of assert may
increase dramatically.
Do you need just one test method or 4 methods for the following test?
public void test_Ctor() {
Ctor c = new Ctor(param1, param2, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 1, param1, c.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 2, param2, c.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 3, param3, c.getParam2());
Ctor c2 = new Ctor(null, param2, param3);
assertNull(Assert 4, c2.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 5, param2, c2.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 6, param3, c3.getParam2());
Ctor c3 = new Ctor(param1, null, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 7, param1, c3.getParam1());
assertNull(Assert 8, c3.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 9, param3, c3.getParam2());
Ctor c4 = new Ctor(param1, param2, null);
assertEquals(Assert 10, param1, c4.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 11, param2, c4.getParam3());
assertNull(Assert 12, c4.getParam2());
}
Hi Richard,
I agree with you that your example demonstrates not quite efficient testing
- there is a lot of duplicate assertions, for example, Assert 2 checks the
same as Assert 5. I'd modify your example in the following way:
public void test_Ctor() {
Ctor c = new Ctor(param1, param2, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 1, param1, c.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 2, param2, c.getParam2());
assertEquals(Assert 3, param3, c.getParam3());
assertNull(Assert 4, new Ctor(null, param2, param3).getParam1());
assertNull(Assert 5, new Ctor(param1, null, param3).getParam2());
assertNull(Assert 6, new Ctor(param1, param2, null).getParam3());
}
IMO, it does equivalent testing as in your example but it is shorter.
Thanks,
Thanks,
Stepan.
Thanks a lot.
Richard Liang wrote:
Dears,
As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create
one with my rough ideas
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can
document our decision timely clearly.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Gentlemen!
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote:
On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote:
On 3/27/06, mr C wrote:
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote:
[SNIP]
Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP]
Now let me support [SNIP].
The ASF front page says
(...) The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative,
consensus
based development process, (...)
That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
How should we organize our tests? has now been the subject of
debate for
*months* around here, and every now and then much of the same
discussion is
rehashed.
And we're making progress. IMO, it really helped my thinking to
distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec
tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the
whole o.a.h.test.* issue.
I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where
java.util.HashMapTest fits.
I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.
Now, I see clearly.
I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on
(such as,
we don't know, but we can find out, or we have different ideas on
that,
but there's room for both, or this way of doing things is not the
best one
but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work
anyway)
than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of
disagreements.
Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that apache projects are
characterized by a *productive* development process. Its just my
feeling that
for a system as big as
Re: [Testing Convention] Keep tests small and fast
will pugh wrote: I'm not too familiar with the Harmony code yet, but since I've had a bunch of experience on large projects I thought I'd toss my $.02 in here. 1) When dealing with a project as large and with as much surface area as a VM, your unit tests for the entire project will probably take several hours to run. The trade off for heavy coverage is totally worth it, even if it takes a long time. It does indeed mean you need to manage it. 2) We tended to manage this by breaking up unit tests into Build Verification Tests(BVTs) and Developer Regression Tests(DRTs). Developers would be required to run DRTs before checking in, and BVTs would be run for every build (or with coninous integration, they would be constantly running every few hours). 3) In the largest projects I've been on DRTs would be broken up further to be on a component level. When you changed a component that other components depended on, we tended to depend on the good sense of the developer to run the DRTs for the related components (and depended on the CI or daily build to catch the problems that slipped through that net.) We set a rule that DRTs for a given component could never take longer than 10 minutes to run. Again, I'm sorry if this is irrelevent (since I'm not familiar enough with the Harmony code), but this process was reasonably effective for us. The real pain ends up being how often changes in core code broke downstream components, but failing tests are only a symptom (and early warning system) for this. The problem is that for core components, it was often important for the developers to run rather a rather long suite of tests before checking in, simply because there were so many components using their pieces. We just bit that bullet. --Will Richard Liang wrote: Dears, I notice that we put all the test code into one big test method (for example, org.apache.harmony.tests.java.util.jar.test_putLjava_lang_ObjectLjava_lang_Object). This way we will lose some benefits of junit and even unit test: 1. Test code cannot share configuration code through setUp and tearDown 2. We have to add redundant code, such as, Assert 1:, Assert 2: to make the test results more comprehensive 3. It makes the test code more complex Shall we just use small test cases? You may want to read the description at: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-2000/jw-1221-junit_p.html *Keep tests small and fast* Executing every test for the entire system shouldn't take hours. Indeed, developers will more consistently run tests that execute quickly. Without regularly running the full set of tests, it will be difficult to validate the entire system when changes are made. Errors will start to creep back in, and the benefits of unit testing will be lost. This means stress tests and load tests for single classes or small frameworks of classes shouldn't be run as part of the unit test suite; they should be executed separately. Thanks a lot. Richard Liang wrote: Dears, As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create one with my rough ideas http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can document our decision timely clearly. Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Leo Simons wrote: Gentlemen! On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote: On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote: On 3/27/06, mr C wrote: [SNIP] [SNIP] [SNIP] On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote: [SNIP] Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP] Now let me support [SNIP]. The ASF front page says (...) The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, consensus based development process, (...) That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing. How should we organize our tests? has now been the subject of debate for *months* around here, and every now and then much of the same discussion is rehashed. And we're making progress. IMO, it really helped my thinking to distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the whole o.a.h.test.* issue. I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where java.util.HashMapTest fits. I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me. Now, I see clearly. I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on (such as, we don't know, but we can find out, or we have different ideas on that, but there's room for both, or this way of doing things is not the best one but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work anyway) than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of disagreements. Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that apache projects are characterized by a *productive* development process. Its just my feeling that for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive. You don't think we're making progress through these
Re: [Testing Convention] Keep tests small and fast
On 3/30/06, Richard Liang wrote:
Dears,
I notice that we put all the test code into one big test method (for
example,
org.apache.harmony.tests.java.util.jar.test_putLjava_lang_ObjectLjava_lang_Object
).
This way we will lose some benefits of junit and even unit test:
1. Test code cannot share configuration code through setUp and tearDown
2. We have to add redundant code, such as, Assert 1:, Assert 2:
to make the test results more comprehensive
3. It makes the test code more complex
Shall we just use small test cases?
You may want to read the description at:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-2000/jw-1221-junit_p.html
*Keep tests small and fast*
Executing every test for the entire system shouldn't take hours. Indeed,
developers will more consistently run tests that execute quickly.
Without regularly running the full set of tests, it will be difficult to
validate the entire system when changes are made. Errors will start to
creep back in, and the benefits of unit testing will be lost. This means
stress tests and load tests for single classes or small frameworks of
classes shouldn't be run as part of the unit test suite; they should be
executed separately.
Hi Richard,
IMHO, this relates to stress tests and load tests only. This means that we
shouldn't put such kind of tests in a 'regular test suite'. The 'regular
test suite' is used to verify regressions only. Returning back to a test's
size, I think it is up to developer - we can only recommend not to test all
functionality in one test case and split independent parts into a number of
test case. But IMHO we can not fully avoid creating 'redundant code', such
as, Assert 1:, Assert 2: . For example, if there is a constructor
with several parameters and get-methods to return provided parameters then I
wouldn't create 3 tests instead of the next one:
public void test_Ctor() {
Ctor c = new Ctor(param1, param2, param3);
assertEquals(Assert 1, param1, c.getParam1());
assertEquals(Assert 2, param2, c.getParam3());
assertEquals(Assert 3, param3, c.getParam2());
}
Thanks,
Stepan.
Thanks a lot.
Richard Liang wrote:
Dears,
As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create
one with my rough ideas
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can
document our decision timely clearly.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Gentlemen!
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote:
On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote:
On 3/27/06, mr C wrote:
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote:
[SNIP]
Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP]
Now let me support [SNIP].
The ASF front page says
(...) The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative,
consensus
based development process, (...)
That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
How should we organize our tests? has now been the subject of
debate for
*months* around here, and every now and then much of the same
discussion is
rehashed.
And we're making progress. IMO, it really helped my thinking to
distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec
tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the
whole o.a.h.test.* issue.
I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where
java.util.HashMapTest fits.
I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.
Now, I see clearly.
I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on
(such as,
we don't know, but we can find out, or we have different ideas on
that,
but there's room for both, or this way of doing things is not the
best one
but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work
anyway)
than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of
disagreements.
Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that apache projects are
characterized by a *productive* development process. Its just my
feeling that
for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive.
You don't think we're making progress through these discussions?
Think about it. Is your time better spent convincing lots of other
people to do
their testing differently, or is it better spent writing better tests?
The issue isn't about convincing someone to do it differently, but
understanding the full scope of problems, that we need to embrace
both approaches, because they are apples and oranges, and we need
both apples and oranges. They aren't exclusionary.
geir
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
--
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
