.
Jean-Louis
--
View this message in context:
http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Re-JUnit-Runner-0-1-tp988903p3042736.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
and enhance it afterwards, than
pushing something more complex/feature-full and having to break something in
next releases.
Jean-Louis
--
View this message in context:
http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Re-JUnit-Runner-0-1-tp988903p3042736.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list
On Feb 23, 2010, at 3:14 AM, David Blevins wrote:
Hey Quintin!
Checked this little gem in -- sorry it's taken so long to get it reviewed.
There's some good stuff in here. I was going to check it into a branch, but
it's in pretty awesome shape. Really gets the creative juices flowing.
Hey Quintin!
Checked this little gem in -- sorry it's taken so long to get it
reviewed. There's some good stuff in here. I was going to check it
into a branch, but it's in pretty awesome shape. Really gets the
creative juices flowing.
We can support @RunTestAs using the same code the
Sorry, meant to send this to the list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Quintin Beukes quin...@last.za.net
Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: JUnit Runner 0.1
To: David Blevins david.blev...@visi.com
re. this.
As you probably noticed the source formatting is very
. It's a bit over the top, but the JUnit runner design
isn't very flexible if you want to keep to good OOP principals. A lot of
innovation and maturity will be needed to have it even close to as
modular/flexible as OpenEJB. So to accommodate for this I added many
comments to describe it.
It's
The bug is solved. Haven't uploaded it again. Will do so this afternoon.
Added a constant: TestSecurity.UNAUTHENTICATED. It basically equals
. You can use that as follows:
@Test
@TestSecurity(
authorized={Admin, Payroll},
unauthorized={Employee, TestSecurity.UNAUTHENTICATED}
)
public void
I must say that writing my tests go much quicker now, and that
compared to before the runner they are MUCH shorter. I had a lot of
extra code for all the different security role tests. Those
@TestSecurity and @RunTestAs annotations help a lot.
Quintin Beukes
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:10 AM,
Uploaded another one. So far this one seems to be doing the trick.
All our tests on the current project have been changed to using this,
and it's DEFINITELY, without doubt helping.
I feel it can use a lot more work, and ideas would be great.
Just let me know what you're thinking, and any design
Glad I could be of service.
Will do the license file and upload it. Then I'll wait until it's in
SVN and just send patches. Beats uploading the whole thing to JIRA
everytime (it's small, but still feels like overkill).
Then, re. the code. I know it can use a lot of API changes. Not a lot
of time
Re. TestNG.
TestNG has factories. haven't used it, but if I recall correctly you
can have a separate class as a factory, and then just reference that
class in your configuration. So if you have a smart factory, you could
probably initialize the InitialContext and then create the test. I'll
have a
I added the license and changed the way security roles are specified.
I remove the securityRole option from the ContextConfig annotation,
and added a @TestSecurity annotation. I has 2 String arrays are
options, nl. authorized and unauthorized. You can use it like this:
@TestSecurity(
OK. Uploaded the mentioned one. Also added a @RunTestAs annotation,
which is used similar to @RunAs.
There is one bug with the TestSecurity, when unauthorized property
contains only a , ie. guest user. Will fix it tonight.
Quintin Beukes
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Quintin Beukes
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Quintin Beukes wrote:
Hey,
The previous runner I started modifying extensively to customize for
our company's tests. I already had a small testing framework for the
tests, which used Spring to initial OpenEJB and do the lookups. I
changed this to use the runner
14 matches
Mail list logo
