RE: Unit testing
> I think we need to take responsibility for this individually. Test > coverage reports usually show woeful under-testing, so it's > really up > to the developer to know whether a test case is needed or not. Currently, this will definitely be the case in OpenJPA, since the bulk of the Kodo test cases were JDO-based, and we at BEA have not yet ported them out to OpenJPA. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:25 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Unit testing > > I think we need to take responsibility for this individually. Test > coverage reports usually show woeful under-testing, so it's > really up > to the developer to know whether a test case is needed or not. > > It might be necessary at times to commit an urgent fix > without having > a full test suite to prove that the fix works, but best practice is > to provide a test case along with the fix. We could make a guideline > that until a test case is checked in, the JIRA issue should remain > open. And when reviewing others' work, the missing test case can be > used as a reason to "un-resolve" an issue. > > But I agree with Kevin that integrating new features without test > cases is evil. > > In my experience, reminders long after the issue is resolved don't > really work that well. > > Craig > > On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Phill Moran wrote: > > > Via test coverage reports would we not know what parts do not have > > corresponding tests and through commit history we would know who > > added the > > fix/feature. So before the next release we can gently remind the > > committers to > > submit the missing test. > > This is likely to be only the occasional committer problem as a > > regular > > committer would monitor the forward progress they would see that a > > test is > > missing and could add it - sort of its own reminder. > > > > Phill > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Michael Dick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: April 10, 2007 10:41 AM > > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Unit testing > > > > +1. We can do a better job of adding unit tests. > > > > Is there a way to link automated checking with JIRA? For bugs, > > features, and > > improvements we'll want new unit tests. For other changes that > > don't require a > > JIRA report (build files, null checks etc) we won't require > new tests. > > I'm not sure whether this approach would work if the JIRA report was > > resolved/closed without code changes (config issue, classpath > > problem, etc). > > > > > > Even if we can't automate the checking with JIRA and svn I think > > this is a good > > rule of thumb. Rather than policing every commit for unit tests we > > can just > > check JIRA reports. It also allows some leeway if you were to > > commit unit tests > > separately from the code changes. If you're reviewing the changes > > based > > primarily on the commit email it might be easier to have them > > separate. > > > > On 4/10/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Patrick, > >> I agree with your concern. Early on, I was at fault a couple of > >> times > >> with integrating changes without a corresponding unit > testcase. But, > >> with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started to > >> remember. So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start > >> monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none > >> were > >> provided. Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly > to the JIRA > >> issue. Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start > to get the > >> point across. > >> > >> I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a > specific bug > >> is
RE: Unit testing
+1 I like this idea you can't close the item without a test case. Phill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2007 11:25 AM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Unit testing I think we need to take responsibility for this individually. Test coverage reports usually show woeful under-testing, so it's really up to the developer to know whether a test case is needed or not. It might be necessary at times to commit an urgent fix without having a full test suite to prove that the fix works, but best practice is to provide a test case along with the fix. We could make a guideline that until a test case is checked in, the JIRA issue should remain open. And when reviewing others' work, the missing test case can be used as a reason to "un-resolve" an issue. But I agree with Kevin that integrating new features without test cases is evil. In my experience, reminders long after the issue is resolved don't really work that well. Craig On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Phill Moran wrote: > Via test coverage reports would we not know what parts do not have > corresponding tests and through commit history we would know who added > the fix/feature. So before the next release we can gently remind the > committers to submit the missing test. > This is likely to be only the occasional committer problem as a > regular committer would monitor the forward progress they would see > that a test is missing and could add it - sort of its own reminder. > > Phill > > -Original Message- > From: Michael Dick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 10, 2007 10:41 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Unit testing > > +1. We can do a better job of adding unit tests. > > Is there a way to link automated checking with JIRA? For bugs, > features, and improvements we'll want new unit tests. For other > changes that don't require a JIRA report (build files, null checks > etc) we won't require new tests. > I'm not sure whether this approach would work if the JIRA report was > resolved/closed without code changes (config issue, classpath problem, > etc). > > > Even if we can't automate the checking with JIRA and svn I think this > is a good rule of thumb. Rather than policing every commit for unit > tests we can just check JIRA reports. It also allows some leeway if > you were to commit unit tests separately from the code changes. If > you're reviewing the changes based primarily on the commit email it > might be easier to have them separate. > > On 4/10/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Patrick, >> I agree with your concern. Early on, I was at fault a couple of >> times with integrating changes without a corresponding unit testcase. >> But, with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started >> to remember. So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start >> monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none >> were provided. Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly to the >> JIRA issue. Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start to get >> the point across. >> >> I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a specific bug >> is easier said than done. Since we are pulling OpenJPA into a larger >> product (WebSphere in my case), some of the test scenarios that >> uncover a bug are quite complicated and involved. Creating an >> individual unit testcase to reproduce the problem is more effort and >> when time is critical, we sometimes go for the quick fix, ensure we >> don't regress, and integrate the change. >> I'm not trying to justify the lack of unit tests for these >> situations, I'm just explaining some background on why it happens >> once in a while. >> >> As far as new "features" being integrated into OpenJPA, there should >> be no excuse for lack of unit tests. We need to provide repeatable >> testcases for these new features. If users are providing patches for >> these new features, then it's easy to stop the commit until testcases >> are provided. If new features are committed without corresponding >> testcases, should we back out the changes? I know that's kind of >> extreme, but it would make a point. Of course, then we get into the >> feature vs bug fix discussion, but if everyone works at providing >> unit tests, then it's a moot point. >> >> Kevin >> >> On 4/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Unit testing
I think we need to take responsibility for this individually. Test coverage reports usually show woeful under-testing, so it's really up to the developer to know whether a test case is needed or not. It might be necessary at times to commit an urgent fix without having a full test suite to prove that the fix works, but best practice is to provide a test case along with the fix. We could make a guideline that until a test case is checked in, the JIRA issue should remain open. And when reviewing others' work, the missing test case can be used as a reason to "un-resolve" an issue. But I agree with Kevin that integrating new features without test cases is evil. In my experience, reminders long after the issue is resolved don't really work that well. Craig On Apr 10, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Phill Moran wrote: Via test coverage reports would we not know what parts do not have corresponding tests and through commit history we would know who added the fix/feature. So before the next release we can gently remind the committers to submit the missing test. This is likely to be only the occasional committer problem as a regular committer would monitor the forward progress they would see that a test is missing and could add it - sort of its own reminder. Phill -Original Message- From: Michael Dick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2007 10:41 AM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Unit testing +1. We can do a better job of adding unit tests. Is there a way to link automated checking with JIRA? For bugs, features, and improvements we'll want new unit tests. For other changes that don't require a JIRA report (build files, null checks etc) we won't require new tests. I'm not sure whether this approach would work if the JIRA report was resolved/closed without code changes (config issue, classpath problem, etc). Even if we can't automate the checking with JIRA and svn I think this is a good rule of thumb. Rather than policing every commit for unit tests we can just check JIRA reports. It also allows some leeway if you were to commit unit tests separately from the code changes. If you're reviewing the changes based primarily on the commit email it might be easier to have them separate. On 4/10/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick, I agree with your concern. Early on, I was at fault a couple of times with integrating changes without a corresponding unit testcase. But, with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started to remember. So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none were provided. Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly to the JIRA issue. Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start to get the point across. I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a specific bug is easier said than done. Since we are pulling OpenJPA into a larger product (WebSphere in my case), some of the test scenarios that uncover a bug are quite complicated and involved. Creating an individual unit testcase to reproduce the problem is more effort and when time is critical, we sometimes go for the quick fix, ensure we don't regress, and integrate the change. I'm not trying to justify the lack of unit tests for these situations, I'm just explaining some background on why it happens once in a while. As far as new "features" being integrated into OpenJPA, there should be no excuse for lack of unit tests. We need to provide repeatable testcases for these new features. If users are providing patches for these new features, then it's easy to stop the commit until testcases are provided. If new features are committed without corresponding testcases, should we back out the changes? I know that's kind of extreme, but it would make a point. Of course, then we get into the feature vs bug fix discussion, but if everyone works at providing unit tests, then it's a moot point. Kevin On 4/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It should be part of the commit acceptance process. I agree that it should be part of the process, but I hope that with sufficient discipline and attention, we can avoid having to enforce this via automated rules. I definitely make changes that don't merit unit tests, such as changes to localized strings, null checks, build file changes, etc. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individ
RE: Unit testing
Via test coverage reports would we not know what parts do not have corresponding tests and through commit history we would know who added the fix/feature. So before the next release we can gently remind the committers to submit the missing test. This is likely to be only the occasional committer problem as a regular committer would monitor the forward progress they would see that a test is missing and could add it - sort of its own reminder. Phill -Original Message- From: Michael Dick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 10, 2007 10:41 AM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Unit testing +1. We can do a better job of adding unit tests. Is there a way to link automated checking with JIRA? For bugs, features, and improvements we'll want new unit tests. For other changes that don't require a JIRA report (build files, null checks etc) we won't require new tests. I'm not sure whether this approach would work if the JIRA report was resolved/closed without code changes (config issue, classpath problem, etc). Even if we can't automate the checking with JIRA and svn I think this is a good rule of thumb. Rather than policing every commit for unit tests we can just check JIRA reports. It also allows some leeway if you were to commit unit tests separately from the code changes. If you're reviewing the changes based primarily on the commit email it might be easier to have them separate. On 4/10/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Patrick, > I agree with your concern. Early on, I was at fault a couple of times > with integrating changes without a corresponding unit testcase. But, > with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started to > remember. So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start > monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none were > provided. Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly to the JIRA > issue. Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start to get the > point across. > > I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a specific bug > is easier said than done. Since we are pulling OpenJPA into a larger > product (WebSphere in my case), some of the test scenarios that > uncover a bug are quite complicated and involved. Creating an > individual unit testcase to reproduce the problem is more effort and > when time is critical, we sometimes go for the quick fix, ensure we > don't regress, and integrate the change. > I'm not trying to justify the lack of unit tests for these situations, > I'm just explaining some background on why it happens once in a while. > > As far as new "features" being integrated into OpenJPA, there should > be no excuse for lack of unit tests. We need to provide repeatable > testcases for these new features. If users are providing patches for > these new features, then it's easy to stop the commit until testcases > are provided. If new features are committed without corresponding > testcases, should we back out the changes? I know that's kind of > extreme, but it would make a point. Of course, then we get into the > feature vs bug fix discussion, but if everyone works at providing unit > tests, then it's a moot point. > > Kevin > > On 4/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It should be part of the commit acceptance process. > > > > I agree that it should be part of the process, but I hope that with > > sufficient discipline and attention, we can avoid having to enforce > > this via automated rules. I definitely make changes that don't merit > > unit tests, such as changes to localized strings, null checks, build > > file changes, etc. > > > > -Patrick > > > > -- > > Patrick Linskey > > BEA Systems, Inc. > > > > > > ___ > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > > contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > > affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for > > the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you > > are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in > > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Phill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:02 AM > > > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Unit testing > > > > > > +1 >
Re: Unit testing
+1. We can do a better job of adding unit tests. Is there a way to link automated checking with JIRA? For bugs, features, and improvements we'll want new unit tests. For other changes that don't require a JIRA report (build files, null checks etc) we won't require new tests. I'm not sure whether this approach would work if the JIRA report was resolved/closed without code changes (config issue, classpath problem, etc). Even if we can't automate the checking with JIRA and svn I think this is a good rule of thumb. Rather than policing every commit for unit tests we can just check JIRA reports. It also allows some leeway if you were to commit unit tests separately from the code changes. If you're reviewing the changes based primarily on the commit email it might be easier to have them separate. On 4/10/07, Kevin Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick, I agree with your concern. Early on, I was at fault a couple of times with integrating changes without a corresponding unit testcase. But, with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started to remember. So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none were provided. Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly to the JIRA issue. Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start to get the point across. I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a specific bug is easier said than done. Since we are pulling OpenJPA into a larger product (WebSphere in my case), some of the test scenarios that uncover a bug are quite complicated and involved. Creating an individual unit testcase to reproduce the problem is more effort and when time is critical, we sometimes go for the quick fix, ensure we don't regress, and integrate the change. I'm not trying to justify the lack of unit tests for these situations, I'm just explaining some background on why it happens once in a while. As far as new "features" being integrated into OpenJPA, there should be no excuse for lack of unit tests. We need to provide repeatable testcases for these new features. If users are providing patches for these new features, then it's easy to stop the commit until testcases are provided. If new features are committed without corresponding testcases, should we back out the changes? I know that's kind of extreme, but it would make a point. Of course, then we get into the feature vs bug fix discussion, but if everyone works at providing unit tests, then it's a moot point. Kevin On 4/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It should be part of the commit acceptance process. > > I agree that it should be part of the process, but I hope that with > sufficient discipline and attention, we can avoid having to enforce this > via automated rules. I definitely make changes that don't merit unit > tests, such as changes to localized strings, null checks, build file > changes, etc. > > -Patrick > > -- > Patrick Linskey > BEA Systems, Inc. > > ___ > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, > and have received this message in error, please immediately return this > by email and then delete it. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Phill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:02 AM > > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: RE: Unit testing > > > > +1 > > It should be part of the commit acceptance process. Otherwise > > OpenJPA will loose > > out to other ORM tools that will be perceived as less buggy. > > What is used for coverage monitoring, clover? We should also > > use checkstyle to > > give some insight into the code as well > > > > Phill > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: April 9, 2007 12:51 PM > > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Unit testing > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm a bit concerned about the lack of unit tests being put > > into OpenJPA as new > > features are added. I understand that often, creating unit tests are > > anticlimactic compared to implementing the feature itself, > > but at least basic > > happy-path testing of new features is pretty essential if we > > want to avoid these
Re: Unit testing
Patrick, I agree with your concern. Early on, I was at fault a couple of times with integrating changes without a corresponding unit testcase. But, with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started to remember. So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none were provided. Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly to the JIRA issue. Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start to get the point across. I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a specific bug is easier said than done. Since we are pulling OpenJPA into a larger product (WebSphere in my case), some of the test scenarios that uncover a bug are quite complicated and involved. Creating an individual unit testcase to reproduce the problem is more effort and when time is critical, we sometimes go for the quick fix, ensure we don't regress, and integrate the change. I'm not trying to justify the lack of unit tests for these situations, I'm just explaining some background on why it happens once in a while. As far as new "features" being integrated into OpenJPA, there should be no excuse for lack of unit tests. We need to provide repeatable testcases for these new features. If users are providing patches for these new features, then it's easy to stop the commit until testcases are provided. If new features are committed without corresponding testcases, should we back out the changes? I know that's kind of extreme, but it would make a point. Of course, then we get into the feature vs bug fix discussion, but if everyone works at providing unit tests, then it's a moot point. Kevin On 4/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It should be part of the commit acceptance process. I agree that it should be part of the process, but I hope that with sufficient discipline and attention, we can avoid having to enforce this via automated rules. I definitely make changes that don't merit unit tests, such as changes to localized strings, null checks, build file changes, etc. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -Original Message- > From: Phill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:02 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Unit testing > > +1 > It should be part of the commit acceptance process. Otherwise > OpenJPA will loose > out to other ORM tools that will be perceived as less buggy. > What is used for coverage monitoring, clover? We should also > use checkstyle to > give some insight into the code as well > > Phill > > -Original Message----- > From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 9, 2007 12:51 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Unit testing > > Hi, > > I'm a bit concerned about the lack of unit tests being put > into OpenJPA as new > features are added. I understand that often, creating unit tests are > anticlimactic compared to implementing the feature itself, > but at least basic > happy-path testing of new features is pretty essential if we > want to avoid these > types of problems. Code inspection is good but, Abe's good > eyes aside, not as > reliable as having a unit test that will start failing when a > feature is broken. > > I try to write my test cases first, in a somewhat-modified > TDD approach. > I do this because a) I need some sort of harness to > demonstrate the failure in > order to isolate and resolve it, and b) I know that > personally, I'm much more > likely to write a test while the problem is still interesting > than after it's > resolved. In other words, I never (well, rarely) have a > command-line harness > that I throw together to demonstrate a problem. I try to > always use a test case > instead. This strategy means that the only test-related > overhead is the effort > involved to figure out how to programmatically test for failure. > > Also, I understand that some things are hard to test. Testing > SQL or JDBC > interactions is often percieved to be one of these things. In > the Kodo codebase, > we ended up creating various means to get around this; the > SQLListenerTestCase > is one suc
RE: Unit testing
> It should be part of the commit acceptance process. I agree that it should be part of the process, but I hope that with sufficient discipline and attention, we can avoid having to enforce this via automated rules. I definitely make changes that don't merit unit tests, such as changes to localized strings, null checks, build file changes, etc. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -Original Message- > From: Phill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:02 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Unit testing > > +1 > It should be part of the commit acceptance process. Otherwise > OpenJPA will loose > out to other ORM tools that will be perceived as less buggy. > What is used for coverage monitoring, clover? We should also > use checkstyle to > give some insight into the code as well > > Phill > > -Original Message- > From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 9, 2007 12:51 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Unit testing > > Hi, > > I'm a bit concerned about the lack of unit tests being put > into OpenJPA as new > features are added. I understand that often, creating unit tests are > anticlimactic compared to implementing the feature itself, > but at least basic > happy-path testing of new features is pretty essential if we > want to avoid these > types of problems. Code inspection is good but, Abe's good > eyes aside, not as > reliable as having a unit test that will start failing when a > feature is broken. > > I try to write my test cases first, in a somewhat-modified > TDD approach. > I do this because a) I need some sort of harness to > demonstrate the failure in > order to isolate and resolve it, and b) I know that > personally, I'm much more > likely to write a test while the problem is still interesting > than after it's > resolved. In other words, I never (well, rarely) have a > command-line harness > that I throw together to demonstrate a problem. I try to > always use a test case > instead. This strategy means that the only test-related > overhead is the effort > involved to figure out how to programmatically test for failure. > > Also, I understand that some things are hard to test. Testing > SQL or JDBC > interactions is often percieved to be one of these things. In > the Kodo codebase, > we ended up creating various means to get around this; the > SQLListenerTestCase > is one such example. It turns out that by extending > SQLListenerTestCase, it > becomes trivial to check how much SQL was written and what > the SQL looks like. > > Does anyone else have any thoughts about how to ensure that > we develop test > cases as needed? > > -Patrick > > -- > Patrick Linskey > BEA Systems, Inc. > > __ > _ > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, > may contain > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > affiliated > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > copyrighted and/or legally > privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity named > in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and > have received this > message in error, please immediately return this by email and > then delete it. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Abe White > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:12 AM > > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (OPENJPA-208) NoResultException and > > NonUniqueResultException are not thrown when expected > > > > > Went ahead and restored the previous behavior where the QueryImpl > > > itself checks for non-uniqueness and throws the expected > exception. > > > > That breaks the single result optimization that was added for > > OPENJPA-168 when getSingleResult() is called. There was a > reason we > > moved the validation to the kernel. The previous code was > correct. > > You need to use the "hard" way of cre
RE: Unit testing
+1 It should be part of the commit acceptance process. Otherwise OpenJPA will loose out to other ORM tools that will be perceived as less buggy. What is used for coverage monitoring, clover? We should also use checkstyle to give some insight into the code as well Phill -Original Message- From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 9, 2007 12:51 PM To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Unit testing Hi, I'm a bit concerned about the lack of unit tests being put into OpenJPA as new features are added. I understand that often, creating unit tests are anticlimactic compared to implementing the feature itself, but at least basic happy-path testing of new features is pretty essential if we want to avoid these types of problems. Code inspection is good but, Abe's good eyes aside, not as reliable as having a unit test that will start failing when a feature is broken. I try to write my test cases first, in a somewhat-modified TDD approach. I do this because a) I need some sort of harness to demonstrate the failure in order to isolate and resolve it, and b) I know that personally, I'm much more likely to write a test while the problem is still interesting than after it's resolved. In other words, I never (well, rarely) have a command-line harness that I throw together to demonstrate a problem. I try to always use a test case instead. This strategy means that the only test-related overhead is the effort involved to figure out how to programmatically test for failure. Also, I understand that some things are hard to test. Testing SQL or JDBC interactions is often percieved to be one of these things. In the Kodo codebase, we ended up creating various means to get around this; the SQLListenerTestCase is one such example. It turns out that by extending SQLListenerTestCase, it becomes trivial to check how much SQL was written and what the SQL looks like. Does anyone else have any thoughts about how to ensure that we develop test cases as needed? -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -Original Message- > From: Abe White > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:12 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (OPENJPA-208) NoResultException and > NonUniqueResultException are not thrown when expected > > > Went ahead and restored the previous behavior where the QueryImpl > > itself checks for non-uniqueness and throws the expected exception. > > That breaks the single result optimization that was added for > OPENJPA-168 when getSingleResult() is called. There was a reason we > moved the validation to the kernel. The previous code was correct. > You need to use the "hard" way of creating new exception types. > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the > use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not > the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, > please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
Unit testing
Hi, I'm a bit concerned about the lack of unit tests being put into OpenJPA as new features are added. I understand that often, creating unit tests are anticlimactic compared to implementing the feature itself, but at least basic happy-path testing of new features is pretty essential if we want to avoid these types of problems. Code inspection is good but, Abe's good eyes aside, not as reliable as having a unit test that will start failing when a feature is broken. I try to write my test cases first, in a somewhat-modified TDD approach. I do this because a) I need some sort of harness to demonstrate the failure in order to isolate and resolve it, and b) I know that personally, I'm much more likely to write a test while the problem is still interesting than after it's resolved. In other words, I never (well, rarely) have a command-line harness that I throw together to demonstrate a problem. I try to always use a test case instead. This strategy means that the only test-related overhead is the effort involved to figure out how to programmatically test for failure. Also, I understand that some things are hard to test. Testing SQL or JDBC interactions is often percieved to be one of these things. In the Kodo codebase, we ended up creating various means to get around this; the SQLListenerTestCase is one such example. It turns out that by extending SQLListenerTestCase, it becomes trivial to check how much SQL was written and what the SQL looks like. Does anyone else have any thoughts about how to ensure that we develop test cases as needed? -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -Original Message- > From: Abe White > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:12 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (OPENJPA-208) NoResultException > and NonUniqueResultException are not thrown when expected > > > Went ahead and restored the previous behavior where the QueryImpl > > itself checks for non-uniqueness and throws the expected exception. > > That breaks the single result optimization that was added for > OPENJPA-168 when getSingleResult() is called. There was a reason we > moved the validation to the kernel. The previous code was correct. > You need to use the "hard" way of creating new exception types. > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, > may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its > subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be > confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally > privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity named in this message. If you are not > the intended recipient, and have received this message in > error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
