May I tactfully suggest that we get this back to a discussion of the pros and cons of JUnit test suites and/or TestNG metadata vs. directory layout.
It sounds like we all want to resolve that problem asap. Regards, Tim George Harley wrote: > Mark Hindess wrote: >> On 6 July 2006 at 18:05, George Harley >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Mark Hindess wrote: >>> >>>> On 6 July 2006 at 12:55, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Mark, >>>>> >>>>> From what I can tell this JIRA hasn't really achieved much apart >>>>> from pushing code around the repository and breaking at least one >>>>> patch (HARMONY-755). >>>>> >>>> Well, obviously that wasn't my motivation! ;-) >>>> >>>> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> No one was saying it was. BTW, good to hear you have some motivation :-) >>> >>> >>> >>>> >From the description, it was clear (to me anyway) that the patch >>>> was to >>>> enable the use of platform-specific test code. While the directories >>>> for the platform-specific test code are currently empty, I'm certain >>>> Paulex plans to rectify this pretty soon. >>>> >>>> >>> Creating empty directories is not the issue here. The patch also >>> entailed moving a whole bunch of other files around the source tree >>> for reasons that are currently being discussed in the dev list. >>> >>> >>>> I think Paulex was correct to separate the process of allowing for >>>> platform-specific tests (HARMONY-782) from any JIRA containing new >>>> tests. >>>> >>> The "process" of allowing for new platform-specific tests is >>> precisely what is being currently discussed on the dev-list in the >>> referenced thread. >>> >> >> I thought it was categorisation of tests in general. >> >> > > Hi Mark, > > Since "platform-specific" is one important category of test then > discussion and agreement on the general topic is important. > > >>>> The JIRA comment by Paulex mentioned that it would break two existing >>>> JIRA issues - HARMONY-775 and HARMONY-767. I applied the former but >>>> the >>>> latter was already assigned to Tim and marked 'In Progress' so I didn't >>>> feel it was right to steal it. However I have made the trivial change >>>> to the patch metadata to fix the HARMONY-767 patch. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately it didn't mention the HARMONY-775 patch, otherwise I >>>> might >>>> have checked with you first. >>>> >>> It was HARMONY-755. I know, now I'm just being picky :-) >>> >> >> Yes. :-) >> >> >>>>> It would be great if you or Paulex (and everyone in fact) could >>>>> comment in the "[classlib] Testing conventions - a proposal" thread >>>>> [1] about this. >>>>> >>>> Certainly - though this seems to me to be orthogonal to the purpose of >>>> the HARMONY-782 patch. >>>> >>> The summary of HARMONY-782 is "Relayout NIO test cases to platform >>> dependent". That is orthogonal to the dev-list discussion on proposed >>> test layout ??? Are you serious ?????? >>> >> >> Ok so maybe not orthogonal but the JIRA (regardless of the exact title) >> was an enabler to allow additional platform-specific tests to be added. >> And adding new tests is something that is independent of the need to >> restructure. Or are you saying we shouldn't create any more tests (or >> fix existing tests) until the restructuring issue is decided? >> >> > > If adding new platform-specific tests is "independent of the need to > restructure" then why did you restructure the NIO tests ? > > > No, I am not saying that we shouldn't create any more tests. No, I am > not saying that we should stop fixing existing ones. This is not a > restructuring issue. If anything, this is an anti-restructuring issue. > This is about pausing to consider a different approach to the existing > proposal for how we manage our tests. It deserves to be considered as it > has the potential to save us all a lot of time and effort pushing files > around. > >> While I see the importance of the restructuring I'm also keen not to >> prevent the problematic nio tests to be fixed. >> >> > > Ditto. But what is the urgency here ? >> Are you suggesting that applying the JIRA made the state of the tests >> any worse than it was before? (I even made an effort to ensure that the >> change was made in a way that was more consistent with the current state >> of another module - to make it easier to programmatically fix them later >> when the test structure issue is resolved.) >> >> Regards, >> Mark. >> >> > > IMHO this is not really about just HARMONY 782 and I would be genuinely > upset if the impression was that I was getting at you or Paulex because > it's not true. This is about asking you, Paulex and everyone to think > about what our tests structure is going to look like eventually, how > much effort is going to be required to maintain its labyrinth layout, > the amount of overhead that is going to mean for our infrastructure (Ant > scripts, IDE metadata files etc) and whether or not we can do better. > > > Best regards, > George > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
