Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your peace... I think it should have a name="" attribute so we keep a consistent "catalog" in the Configuration. --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
There are two basic usages:
#1:
#2:
If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
peace...
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Actually, probably even better:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String sqlCreateString();
public String sqlDropString();
}
;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: testing question
>
>
>>
>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
> relating
>> to stored procedure support.
>>
>
> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
> while
> running
> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>
> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
> provided additional DDL's ?
> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
>
> it...maybe our own
> testing is ?)
>
> /max
>
>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
> I'll
>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
>> solutions.
>>
>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
> register
>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>> look like:
>>
>> interface DatabaseObject {
>> void doCreate(Connection conn);
>> void doDrop(Connection conn);
>> }
>>
>> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
>> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
>> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
>> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
>> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>>
>> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
>> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
> though
>> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that
frequency.
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibe
[Hibernate] Why is cglib three JARs?
I didn't really understand that change. Why do we have several JARs now for CGLIB and why can't we have a single one? --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] RE: testing question
The problem is:
statement.execute("CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
allEmployments \n" +
"RETURN SYS_REFCURSOR \n" +
"AS \n" +
"st_cursor SYS_REFCURSOR; \n" +
"BEGIN \n" +
"OPEN st_cursor FOR \n" +
" SELECT EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER, \n" +
" STARTDATE, ENDDATE, \n" +
" REGIONCODE, EID, VALUE, CURRENCY \n" +
" FROM EMPLOYMENT; \n" +
" RETURN st_cursor; \n " +
"END;\n");
in testEntityStoredProcedure()
You reference a column EMPLOYMENT.EID that does not exist. Oracle does
not throw exceptions on failed stored-procedure/function creation. It
simply returns warnings. I modified this test to fix this bit...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
>
> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
> to stored procedure support.
>
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
> solutions.
>
> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
> look like:
>
> interface DatabaseObject {
> void doCreate(Connection conn);
> void doDrop(Connection conn);
> }
>
> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>
> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
>
> Anyway, thoughts?
>
> Steve
>
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Actually, probably even better:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String sqlCreateString();
public String sqlDropString();
}
;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: testing question
>
>
>>
>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
> relating
>> to stored procedure support.
>>
>
> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
> while
> running
> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>
> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
> provided additional DDL's ?
> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
>
> it...maybe our own
> testing is ?)
>
> /max
>
>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
> I'll
>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
>> solutions.
>>
>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
> register
>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>> look like:
>>
>> interface DatabaseObject {
>> void doCreate(Connection conn);
>> void doDrop(Connection conn);
>> }
>>
>> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
>> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
>> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
>> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
>> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>>
>> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
>> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
> though
>> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that
frequency.
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: testing question
>
>
>>
>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
> relating
>> to stored procedure support.
>>
>
> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
> while
> running
> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>
> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
> provided additional DDL's ?
> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
>
> it...maybe our own
> testing is ?)
>
> /max
>
>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
> I'll
>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
>> solutions.
>>
>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
> register
>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>> look like:
>>
>> interface DatabaseObject {
>> void doCreate(Connection conn);
>> void doDrop(Connection conn);
>> }
>>
>> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
>> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
>> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
>> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
>> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>>
>> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
>> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
> though
>> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that
frequency.
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject mentioned
(keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
need to expose the create/drop strings.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
to stored procedure support.
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
Anyway, thoughts?
Steve
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] RE: testing question
If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject mentioned
(keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
need to expose the create/drop strings.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
>
> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
> to stored procedure support.
>
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
> solutions.
>
> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
> look like:
>
> interface DatabaseObject {
> void doCreate(Connection conn);
> void doDrop(Connection conn);
> }
>
> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>
> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
>
> Anyway, thoughts?
>
> Steve
>
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] Re: testing question
exactly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max
Rydahl Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:40 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] Re: testing question
The trick below doesn't work well when you run the unittest standalone
(which
I do constantly from inside eclipse)
/max
>> The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>
> I worked on the CaveatEmptor tests and I do this using the TestSetup
> decorator:
>
> public static Test suite() {
>
> TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
>
> suite.addTestSuite( UserTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( ItemTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( CategoryItemTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( AuditTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( NestedSetTest.class );
>
> return new HibernateTestSetup(suite);
> }
>
>
> public class HibernateTestSetup extends junit.extensions.TestSetup {
>
> public HibernateTestSetup(Test test) {
> super(test);
> // Enable automatic schema generation for unit testing, if
not
> already set in configuration
> HibernateUtil.getConfiguration().setProperty
> (Environment.HBM2DDL_AUTO, "create-drop");
> }
>
> protected void setUp() throws Exception {
> super.setUp();
> HibernateUtil.rebuildSessionFactory();
> }
>
> protected void tearDown() throws Exception {
> super.tearDown();
> HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().close();
> }
>
> }
>
> This setup/teardown is executed once for the suite I'm wrapping.
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
Re: [Hibernate] Re: testing question
The trick below doesn't work well when you run the unittest standalone
(which
I do constantly from inside eclipse)
/max
The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
I worked on the CaveatEmptor tests and I do this using the TestSetup
decorator:
public static Test suite() {
TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
suite.addTestSuite( UserTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( ItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( CategoryItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( AuditTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( NestedSetTest.class );
return new HibernateTestSetup(suite);
}
public class HibernateTestSetup extends junit.extensions.TestSetup {
public HibernateTestSetup(Test test) {
super(test);
// Enable automatic schema generation for unit testing, if not
already set in configuration
HibernateUtil.getConfiguration().setProperty
(Environment.HBM2DDL_AUTO, "create-drop");
}
protected void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
HibernateUtil.rebuildSessionFactory();
}
protected void tearDown() throws Exception {
super.tearDown();
HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().close();
}
}
This setup/teardown is executed once for the suite I'm wrapping.
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] Re: testing question
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests relating
to stored procedure support.
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even though
we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
Anyway, thoughts?
Steve
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] Re: testing question
On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
I worked on the CaveatEmptor tests and I do this using the TestSetup
decorator:
public static Test suite() {
TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
suite.addTestSuite( UserTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( ItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( CategoryItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( AuditTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( NestedSetTest.class );
return new HibernateTestSetup(suite);
}
public class HibernateTestSetup extends junit.extensions.TestSetup {
public HibernateTestSetup(Test test) {
super(test);
// Enable automatic schema generation for unit testing, if
not already set in configuration
HibernateUtil.getConfiguration().setProperty
(Environment.HBM2DDL_AUTO, "create-drop");
}
protected void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
HibernateUtil.rebuildSessionFactory();
}
protected void tearDown() throws Exception {
super.tearDown();
HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().close();
}
}
This setup/teardown is executed once for the suite I'm wrapping.
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] testing question
In working on this functionality to test the support for "database
generated" values, I ran across an interesting issue with unit testing
this functionality. Basically, the only real way to test this in a
consistent fashion across all databases is to apply triggers to the
database in use for testing (after schema generation).
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests relating
to stored procedure support.
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even though
we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
Anyway, thoughts?
Steve
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
