se CTS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 April 2007 17:19
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
> classes don't inherit f
9
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
> classes don't inherit from TestCase
>
> The Junit tooling is so useful I'd be loath to drop it as the harness
> that the Tuscany implementation uses for exercising th
.
-Original Message-
From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 April 2007 17:19
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCase
The Junit tooling is so useful I'd be loath to drop
The Junit tooling is so useful I'd be loath to drop it as the harness that
the Tuscany implementation uses for exercising the tests. I'm going to do a
bit of playing to see what solutions are practical, but I'm concerned that
we may be considering putting significant effort into a goal that's rat
s in their current form. If we
> want to stick to the simple junit 3.8 style then these tests will need
some refactoring.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy.
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 April 2007 11:03
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.
A quick correction on my previous note which reflects a bias towards the
junit 3.8 approach that I didn't really intend.
some static code that performed any real startup overhead and cached the
helper. This all leads me to believing that to get true agnosticism wrt the
test harness we should p
vin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 April 2007 11:03
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCase
In fact I'd say for the purposed of introspection by some other harness
the old style is
Message-
From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 April 2007 11:03
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCase
In fact I'd say for the purposed of introspection by some other harn
Frank Budinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 April 2007 18:01
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCase
Hi Andy,
Java allows you make something more visible in a derived class than in
the base,
er.
Thanks,
Andy.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of kelvin goodson
Sent: 17 April 2007 16:59
To: Andy Grove
Cc: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from
junit test runners.
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: Frank Budinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 April 2007 18:01
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCase
Hi Andy,
Java allows you ma
at we should continue writing SDO CTS tests using
> junit, but ensure we use the annotation pattern rather than extending
> TestCase. Is everyone happy with this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
;
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Budinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 April 2007 17:03
> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
> classes don't inherit from TestCase
>
> Hi Andy,
>
ssage-
From: Frank Budinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 April 2007 17:03
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCase
Hi Andy,
Maybe this is a stupid question (my junit ignorance showi
junit, but ensure we use the annotation pattern rather than extending
TestCase. Is everyone happy with this?
Thanks,
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 April 2007 14:53
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 patt
ensure we use the annotation pattern rather than extending
TestCase. Is everyone happy with this?
Thanks,
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: kelvin goodson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 April 2007 14:53
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calli
Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCase
Yes, I was about to write to the list on this subject. I'd like to
understand more of how the test harness agnosticism was intended, and
whether its really practical. As it stands there is sti
Yes, I was about to write to the list on this subject. I'd like to
understand more of how the test harness agnosticism was intended, and
whether its really practical. As it stands there is still junit through and
through, in particular, each test method still references junit assertion
calls. Ev
dependency on the junit test
runner class.
Hope that helps.
Andy.
-Original Message-
From: Simon Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 17 April 2007 14:35
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when
classes don't inherit from TestCas
If the goal is to make the tests "harness agnostic", then I don't
see much difference between a JUnit-specific inheritance dependency
and a JUnit-specific annotation dependency. Is the annotation
dependency less troublesome for some reason?
Simon
kelvin goodson wrote:
Thanks for this Andy,
Thanks for this Andy, I'll play with it tomorrow.
Regards, Kelvin.
On 16/04/07, Andy Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe you just need to annotate the setUp method with @Before. This
is described in the junit cookbook, here:
http://junit.sourceforge.net/doc/cookbook/cookbook.htm
I'm
I believe you just need to annotate the setUp method with @Before. This
is described in the junit cookbook, here:
http://junit.sourceforge.net/doc/cookbook/cookbook.htm
I'm currently working on submitting some more XSD test cases in the CTS
so I'll try this method out. Hopefully I can then remov
22 matches
Mail list logo
