Mikhail Loenko wrote:
It is more preferable to have tests implementation-independent:
we can validate them on RI, the tests will not have to be modified if we
modify our implementation.
Hello Mikhail,
Agree. :-)
But I think the test
the previous message returned, so resending...
-- Forwarded message --
Now when you pointed to internization of String literals it would definitely
work. I was talking about original problem. The only way to check
that Harmony implementation of HttpURLConnection compares strings
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
George Harley wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
That is a very good point and your suggestion of supplementing the
class
or package name sounds like a very straightforward way around the
problem. Because there will be a number of
Yes there is.
They can access protected fields (they are also package-visible). Or they
can test something related to class loading.
Example. Recently I committed
modules\luni\src\test\java.injected\java\net\HttpURLConnectionAccessor.java
that is not a test though but something that is used by
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Yes there is.
They can access protected fields (they are also package-visible). Or they
can test something related to class loading.
Example. Recently I committed
modules\luni\src\test\java.injected\java\net\HttpURLConnectionAccessor.java
that is not a test
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Yes there is.
They can access protected fields (they are also package-visible). Or they
can test something related to class loading.
Example. Recently I committed
modules\luni\src\test\java.injected\java\net\HttpURLConnectionAccessor.java
that is not a test though
2006/5/25, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We could always just partition in the filesystem and separate the test
runs for bootclasspath API, and bootclasspath implementation?
The problem is that we have a single directory where we put results. So if we
run all the tests including both
should we rethink this? Not just for this reason, but also for ease of
data management as this thing grows...
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/5/25, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We could always just partition in the filesystem and separate the test
runs for bootclasspath API, and
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
George Harley wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
That is a very good point and your suggestion of supplementing the
class
or package name sounds like a very straightforward way around the
problem. Because there will be a number of
I think this is because user classloader is not allowed to load classes from
internal java packages (E.g. java.lang)
But tests can be written not only for public interfaces but for package
local too.
On 5/24/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please explain why we need
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Yes there is.
They can access protected fields (they are also package-visible). Or they
can test something related to class loading.
Example. Recently I committed
modules\luni\src\test\java.injected\java\net\HttpURLConnectionAccessor.java
that is not a test though
Hi Geir
2006/5/25, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
should we rethink this? Not just for this reason, but also for ease of
data management as this thing grows...
it is a good question. I've played around this. We can put .xml test results
to different dirs and then create a single
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi Richard
Do you mean a mock subclass of j.n.HttpURLConnection or a mock
subclass of
o.a.h.luni.internalHttpURLConnection ?
If it is a subclass for o.a.h... then it won't pass on RI - it would
be an impl test,
Hi Mikhail,
I'm sorry if my previous description
It is more preferable to have tests implementation-independent:
we can validate them on RI, the tests will not have to be modified if we
modify our implementation.
The test I was talking about was impl-independent. It obtained an instance of
an internal class by impl-independent way and then did
George Harley wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
That is a very good point and your suggestion of supplementing the class
or package name sounds like a very straightforward way around the
problem. Because there will be a number of tests that must be in an
identical package name to the type under test then
2006/5/24, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
George Harley wrote:
Hi Mikhail,
That is a very good point and your suggestion of supplementing the class
or package name sounds like a very straightforward way around the
problem. Because there will be a number of tests that must be in an
I've intergrated the changes and updated guidlines proposal.
Please comment.
Thanks,
Mikhail
-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi George,
I use ant to build and run the tests, so I'm likely unaware of some
Eclipse
problems.
If we put classpath test classes to
impl/java and api/java
and bootclasspath ones to something like
impl/java.injected and api/java.injected
will it solve the problem
That sounds very reasonable, but I have a problem:
I tried to implement it and found that as far as we put all test results
into a single directory and generate a single report, we can't have
different tests with the same name.
For example we can't have impl and api tests of
Hi Mikhail,
That is a very good point and your suggestion of supplementing the class
or package name sounds like a very straightforward way around the
problem. Because there will be a number of tests that must be in an
identical package name to the type under test then it seems that the
There are classes like X509CertImpl.java in this case impl test for it
would be X509CertImplImplTest which does not look very good.
How about ITest ?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/5/18, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Mikhail,
That is a very good point and your suggestion of supplementing the
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
There are classes like X509CertImpl.java in this case impl test for it
would be X509CertImplImplTest which does not look very good.
How about ITest ?
Thanks,
Mikhail
Hi Mikhail,
Sure, that works for me.
Best regards,
George
2006/5/18, George Harley [EMAIL
It is hard to notice 'I' letter between others :-) , for example, the next
doesn't look good for me:
SomeExceptionITest.java, SomeExceptionTest.java
What about SomeException_ImplTest.java?
Thanks,
Stepan.
On 5/18/06, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
There are classes like X509CertImpl.java in this case
remove excessive Test suffix.
With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Middleware Products Division
-Original Message-
From: George Harley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 4:34 PM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] Layout of tests in crypto
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/5/16, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi George, see below
2006/5/16, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Mikhail,
I have a couple of minor comments about your proposal for a test
layouts. I should have responded sooner, I know, but I
Hi George,
I use ant to build and run the tests, so I'm likely unaware of some Eclipse
problems.
If we put classpath test classes to
impl/java and api/java
and bootclasspath ones to something like
impl/java.injected and api/java.injected
will it solve the problem you describe?
Thanks,
Hi Alexei
We are discussing proposed test layout [1]
Thanks,
Mikhail
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html
2006/5/17, Fedotov, Alexei A [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
George,
You wrote,
I'm wondering about how the test classes intended to be
loaded by the
Hi George, see below
2006/5/16, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Mikhail,
I have a couple of minor comments about your proposal for a test
layouts. I should have responded sooner, I know, but I have suffered
from a number of hardware problems in the past few weeks that slowed
things down
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi George, see below
2006/5/16, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Mikhail,
I have a couple of minor comments about your proposal for a test
layouts. I should have responded sooner, I know, but I have suffered
from a number of hardware problems in the past few weeks
2006/5/16, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Hi George, see below
2006/5/16, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Mikhail,
I have a couple of minor comments about your proposal for a test
layouts. I should have responded sooner, I know, but I have suffered
from a
Hi Mikhail,
I have a couple of minor comments about your proposal for a test
layouts. I should have responded sooner, I know, but I have suffered
from a number of hardware problems in the past few weeks that slowed
things down somewhat for me. Anyway, it's all great but it would be nice
to
31 matches
Mail list logo
