On 7/24/06, Alexei Zakharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
Cons:
1. More complex algorithms of grouping / selecting tests for execution:
harness (being it Junit, TestNG or my own script) must understand word
mark-up instead of just simple walking directories.
BTW, after brief
The more I work with our tests the more I see that managing tests via
directory layout is worse than using metadata.
I thought about three more characteristics we might want to mark-up tests
with:
- Platform-specific unit tests
- Harmony implementation test vs. API tests
- Broken buggy
Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
The more I work with our tests the more I see that managing tests via
directory layout is worse than using metadata.
Agree :-)
I thought about three more characteristics we might want to mark-up tests
with:
- Platform-specific unit tests
- Harmony implementation
Richard Liang wrote:
Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
The more I work with our tests the more I see that managing tests via
directory layout is worse than using metadata.
Agree :-)
I thought about three more characteristics we might want to mark-up
tests
with:
- Platform-specific unit tests
-
Let me add a couple of words.
The problem: in Harmony unit test suite we need to mark-up somehow and
manage:
- Platform-specific unit tests
- Harmony implementation test vs. API tests
- Broken buggy tests
- Tests failing due to bug in implementation
- [Potentially in future] type of test –
Hi Vladimir,
Cons:
1. More complex algorithms of grouping / selecting tests for execution:
harness (being it Junit, TestNG or my own script) must understand word
mark-up instead of just simple walking directories.
BTW, after brief browsing of the JUnit 4.0 documentation I didn't find
any
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
