ds,
> > George
> >
> > George C. Harley
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 16/01/2006 12:54
> > Please respond to
> > harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> &
ortant
consideration. However...
geir
Best regards,
George
George C. Harley
Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16/01/2006 12:54
Please respond to
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Test suite layout
George Harley1 wrot
Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16/01/2006 12:54
Please respond to
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Test suite layout
George Harley1 wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> This is not the goal of unit tests. They do not test API, they tes
@incubator.apache.org
To
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Test suite layout
On 1/16/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
If your unit tests are intended to test API, then they should be calling
the API in the same manner that an application will call the API. Jus
__
George C. Harley
Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16/01/2006 11:58
Please respond to
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Test suite layout
On 1/16/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> If your unit tests a
>
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan Mishura
> > Intel Middleware Products Division
> >
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:04
o that on the application classloader to test security
manager functionality.
Regards,
Tim
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Tim Ellison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>&
Paulex Yang wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
What we've tended to do, internally, is to name the testcases after the
type they are testing, so all unit tests for java.io.File are put into a
tests package ending with java.io in a type called FileTest that extends
the juni
Tim Ellison wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.
namespace is reserved, so the formula is simply
. -> org.apache.harmony.tests..Test
Ug - then you have the problem of not being in the namespace as what you
are
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:04 PM
>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Test suite layout
>
>Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>
>
>>> We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.
>>> namespace is r
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
What we've tended to do, internally, is to name the testcases after the
type they are testing, so all unit tests for java.io.File are put into a
tests package ending with java.io in a type called FileTest that extends
the junit.framework.TestCase.
Mishura, Stepan M wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>
>>We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.
>>namespace is reserved, so the formula is simply
>>
>>. -> org.apache.harmony.tests..Test
>
> Placing classes and tests for them in different packages won't allow
> testing package acce
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.
>> namespace is reserved, so the formula is simply
>>
>> . -> org.apache.harmony.tests..Test
>
>
> Ug - then you have the problem of not being in the namespace as what you
> are testing.
Tim Ellison wrote:
>
>We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.
>namespace is reserved, so the formula is simply
>
>. -> org.apache.harmony.tests..Test
>
Placing classes and tests for them in different packages won't allow
testing package access functionality.
>
>Then within th
Tim Ellison wrote:
What we've tended to do, internally, is to name the testcases after the
type they are testing, so all unit tests for java.io.File are put into a
tests package ending with java.io in a type called FileTest that extends
the junit.framework.TestCase.
Yes - that's the canonical
15 matches
Mail list logo
