Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi George,
Sorry for the late reply.
Hi Alexei,
Not a problem. Especially when my reply to you is even later (sorry).
It looks like you are using an os.any group for those test methods
(the majority) which may be run anywhere. That's a different approach to
what I
FYI, I haven't studied it yet, but seems new TestNG 5 support ant task
with JVM parameter[1]
[1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=41479
Richard Liang wrote:
Just thinking about using TestNG to execute Harmony test cases. :-)
Look at our build.xml (e.g.,
On 7/20/06, George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Anyway, the point I guess that I am trying to make here is that it is
possible in TestNG to select the methods to test dynamically using a
little bit of scripting that (a) gives us a lot more power than the
include/exclude technique and (b) will work the
Hi George,
Sorry for the late reply.
It looks like you are using an os.any group for those test methods
(the majority) which may be run anywhere. That's a different approach to
what I have been doing. I have been thinking more along the lines of
avoiding the creation of groups that cover the
Hi George,
Wow, they are fast guys! Thanks for the link. Do you know when do they
plan to release 5.0 officially?
Regards,
2006/7/19, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Alexei,
I just downloaded the latest working build of TestNG 5.0 [1] and support
for the jvm attribute is in there. This
Richard Liang wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order
to simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included
and excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi George,
Wow, they are fast guys! Thanks for the link. Do you know when do they
plan to release 5.0 officially?
Regards,
Hi Alexei,
Actually, I just saw this announcement in my news reader about 15
minutes ago ...
http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000400.html
George,
I remember my past experience with BeanShell - I was trying to create
the custom BeanShell task for ant 1.6.1. I can't say I haven't
succeeded. But I remember this as a rather unpleasant experience. At
that time BeanShell appeared to me as a not very well tested
framework. Please don't
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
George,
I remember my past experience with BeanShell - I was trying to create
the custom BeanShell task for ant 1.6.1. I can't say I haven't
succeeded. But I remember this as a rather unpleasant experience. At
that time BeanShell appeared to me as a not very well tested
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order to
simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included and
excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need to be agreed
by the project. Consider the possibilities that the
According to TestNG Ant Task [1], it seems that the TestNG Ant task
does not support to fork a new JVM, that is, we must launch ant using
Harmony itself. Any comments? Thanks a lot.
[1]http://testng.org/doc/ant.html
Best regards,
Richard
George Harley wrote:
Andrew Zhang wrote:
On 7/18/06,
Hmm, do we have problems with launching ant? I thought we have
problems with launching TestNG. Just checked - running tests for beans
on j9+fresh classlib works fine. I.e.
ant -Dbuild.module=beans
-Dbuild.compiler=org.eclipse.jdt.core.JDTCompilerAdapter test
2006/7/19, Richard Liang [EMAIL
Just thinking about using TestNG to execute Harmony test cases. :-)
Look at our build.xml (e.g., modules/luni/build.xml), you will see
something like:
..
junit fork=yes
forkmode=once
printsummary=withOutAndErr
Richard Liang wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order
to simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included
and excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need to be
agreed by the project. Consider the
Hi Richard,
Actually the Ant task always runs the tests in a forked VM. At present,
however, the task does not support specifying the forked VM (i.e. there
is no equivalent to the JUnit Ant task's jvm attribute). This matter
has already been raised with the TestNG folks who seem happy to
Probably my previous message was not clear enough.
Why can't we just invoke everything including ant on top of Harmony
for now? At least I was able to build and run test-14 examples from
TestNG 4.7 distribution solely on top of j9 + our classlib today.
C:\Java\testng-4.7\test-14set
Hi Alexei,
It's encouraging to hear that (Ant + TestNG + sample tests) all worked
fine together on Harmony. In answer to your question I suppose that the
ability to fork the tests in a separate VM means that we do not run the
risk of possible bugs in Harmony affecting the test harness and
Hi George,
Agree, we may experience problems in case of VM hang or crash. I
suggest this only as a temporary solution. BTW, the fact that TestNG
ant task still doesn't have such attributes looks like a sign for me -
TestNG can be still immature in some aspects. Still comparing TestNG
and JUnit.
Hi Alexei,
I just downloaded the latest working build of TestNG 5.0 [1] and support
for the jvm attribute is in there. This is not the official release
build.
Best regards,
George
[1] http://testng.org/testng-5.0.zip
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi George,
Agree, we may experience problems in
George Harley wrote:
Hi Alexei,
It's encouraging to hear that (Ant + TestNG + sample tests) all worked
fine together on Harmony. In answer to your question I suppose that
the ability to fork the tests in a separate VM means that we do not
run the risk of possible bugs in Harmony affecting
George Harley wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order
to simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included
and excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need to be
agreed by the
George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for use
inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial thoughts:
* type.impl -- tests that are specific to Harmony
So tests are
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for use
inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial thoughts:
* type.impl -- tests that are specific to
George Harley wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for
use inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial thoughts:
* type.impl -- tests
On 7/18/06, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for use
inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial
Hi,
George wrote:
Thanks, but I don't see it as final yet really. It would be great to
prove the worth of this by doing a trial on one of the existing modules,
ideally something that contains tests that are platform-specific.
I volunteer to do this trial for beans module. I'm not sure that
On 7/18/06, Alexei Zakharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
George wrote:
Thanks, but I don't see it as final yet really. It would be great to
prove the worth of this by doing a trial on one of the existing
modules,
ideally something that contains tests that are platform-specific.
I
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for
use inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial thoughts:
*
Andrew Zhang wrote:
On 7/18/06, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test
methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for use
inside Harmony ? Here are
George Harley wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
SNIP!
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test
methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for
use inside Harmony ? Here are some of
Andrew Zhang wrote:
On 7/18/06, Alexei Zakharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
George wrote:
Thanks, but I don't see it as final yet really. It would be great to
prove the worth of this by doing a trial on one of the existing
modules,
ideally something that contains tests that are
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi,
George wrote:
Thanks, but I don't see it as final yet really. It would be great to
prove the worth of this by doing a trial on one of the existing
modules,
ideally something that contains tests that are platform-specific.
I volunteer to do this trial for beans
Andrew Zhang wrote:
On 7/14/06, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order to
simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included and
excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need to be agreed by
the
Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order to
simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included and
excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need to be agreed by
the project. Consider the possibilities that the TestNG @Test
annotation
On 7/14/06, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order to
simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included and
excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need to be agreed by
the project. Consider the
Hi Alex,
It's a pitty what you didn't find common sense in my post. Probably I
was not clear enough. My key points are:
1. JUnit is much like a standard of unit testing today
2. We are using JUnit already, have thousands of tests
3. May be I was not correct about bugs in TestNG - I assume that
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while
now. I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of
class
Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers (=
annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure is a
tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the sets
Concerning TestNG vs JUnit. I just like to pay your attention on the
fact what it is
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers (=
annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure is a
tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the sets
Concerning TestNG vs JUnit. I just like to pay your attention on
Oliver Deakin wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while
now. I think that it is a good time for us to
George Harley wrote:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Actually, there's a very valid benefit for using TestNG markers (=
annotations/JavaDoc) for grouping tests; the directory structure is a
tree, whereas the markers can form any slice of tests, and the sets
Concerning TestNG vs JUnit. I just like
Hi George,
For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find out
why you refer to TestNG as being an unstable test harness. What is
that statement based on ?
My exact statement was referring to TestNG as probably unstable
rather than simply unstable. ;) This statement was
On 10/07/06, Alexei Zakharov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi George,
For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find out
why you refer to TestNG as being an unstable test harness. What is
that statement based on ?
My exact statement was referring to TestNG as probably
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi George,
For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find out
why you refer to TestNG as being an unstable test harness. What is
that statement based on ?
My exact statement was referring to TestNG as probably unstable
rather than simply unstable.
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] Testing conventions - a proposal
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi George,
For the purposes of this discussion it would be fascinating to find out
why you refer to TestNG as being an unstable test harness. What is
that statement based on ?
My exact
Richard Liang wrote:
Paulex Yang wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Hello All,
After read through the document recommended by Alex, I think TestNG
can really meet our requirement. It provides much flexibility for
test configuration. ;-)
If we decide to transfer to TestNG, we shall:
1.
Nathan Beyer wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a fun thread. I plan to read it from end to end later today and
comment.
Initial thoughts are that I've been wanting to use TestNG for months
(hence my resistance to any JUnit
On 08/07/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while I like the annotations, and expect we can use them effectively,
I have an instinctive skepticism of annotations right now because in
general (in general in Java), I'm not convinced we've used them enough
to grok good design
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On 08/07/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while I like the annotations, and expect we can use them effectively,
I have an instinctive skepticism of annotations right now because in
general (in general in Java), I'm not convinced we've used them enough
On 6 July 2006 at 21:02, Nathan Beyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Tim has a valid point, or at least the point I'm inferring
seems valid: the testing technology is not the real issue. This
problem can be solved by either JUnit or TestNG. More specifically,
this problem can be solved
Oliver Deakin wrote:
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while
now. I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of
class library test layouts.
The
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maven layout? We were doing that layout in Jakarta projects long
before maven
And I would guess the Maven designers would agree. Much of their
documentation talks about how the conventions inferred in the
2006/7/5, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while now.
I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of class
library test layouts.
The current
On 06/07/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Harley wrote:
A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the TestNG framework [2] seemed
like a reasonably good way of allowing us to both group together
different kinds of tests and permit the exclusion of individual
tests/groups of
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On 06/07/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Harley wrote:
A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the TestNG framework [2] seemed
like a reasonably good way of allowing us to both group together
different kinds of tests and permit the exclusion of
On 06/07/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that you're very familiar with TestNG. ;-) So would you please
identify what we shall do to transfer from junit to TestNG? Thanks a lot.
Me? I'm just highly opinionated :-)
There's guidelines for migrating from JUnit to TestNG at
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On 06/07/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that you're very familiar with TestNG. ;-) So would you please
identify what we shall do to transfer from junit to TestNG? Thanks a
lot.
Me? I'm just highly opinionated :-)
There's guidelines for migrating
Alex Blewitt wrote:
On 06/07/06, Richard Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that you're very familiar with TestNG. ;-) So would you please
identify what we shall do to transfer from junit to TestNG? Thanks a
lot.
Me? I'm just highly opinionated :-)
Hi Alex,
I think we are all
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
2006/7/5, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while now.
I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of class
library
I think Tim has a valid point, or at least the point I'm inferring seems
valid: the testing technology is not the real issue. This problem can be
solved by either JUnit or TestNG. More specifically, this problem can be
solved utilizing the grouping of arbitrary tests.
I'm been playing with
On 7/5/06, George Harley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while now.
I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of class
library test layouts.
The
Hello All,
After read through the document recommended by Alex, I think TestNG can
really meet our requirement. It provides much flexibility for test
configuration. ;-)
If we decide to transfer to TestNG, we shall:
1. Identify Harmony testing strategy. (It's not easy)
2. Define TestNG
Richard Liang wrote:
Hello All,
After read through the document recommended by Alex, I think TestNG
can really meet our requirement. It provides much flexibility for test
configuration. ;-)
If we decide to transfer to TestNG, we shall:
1. Identify Harmony testing strategy. (It's not easy)
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while
now. I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of
class library test layouts.
The current proposal [1] sets
64 matches
Mail list logo
