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. Even if we could do assertions from annotations (as per JML pre and post conditions), we still have all the junit imports. If that were possible, then I guess each of the test methods could be invoked by something other than the junit test harness, but they would have trouble asserting anything about the success of the method invocation, since there are no artifacts available before or after the method invocation to make assertions about.
Kelvin On 17/04/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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, 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 currently working on submitting some more XSD test cases in the CTS >> so I'll try this method out. Hopefully I can then remove the current >> dependency on TestCase in those tests. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Andy. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of kelvin goodson >> Sent: 16 April 2007 14:42 >> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >> Cc: Robbie Minshall >> Subject: [Java SDO CTS] Junit 4.1 pattern for calling setUp when classes >> don't inherit from TestCase >> >> Hi, >> I'm looking at doing some work in the CTS. I was looking back at >> Robbie's attached description about how to keep the tests "harness >> agnostic". I'm assuming that this is still a goal of the CTS although I >> may have missed something in my catching up. In my quest to make the CTS >> better I note that a number of the test case classes still extend the >> junit TestCase class. >> This is true for all test classes that have a setUp() method. One that >> doesn't inherit from TestCase is XSDSerializationTest, and adding a >> setUp method to this class doesn't cause junit to invoke it in my >> eclipse environment. I'm trying to work out whether I should I expect a >> 4.1environment to discover and execute the setUp method when junit is >> used in this way. I seem to have Eclipse junit plugins for 3.8.1 and >> 4.1.0.1 and the preferences tab for Junit doesn't seem to offer much in >> the way of configuration, so I can't be sure I'm using 4.1 behaviour. >> >> I really would like to be XSDSerializationTests to execute setUp so that >> we can have a fresh HelperContext per test, and I guess the easy way >> out is to make the test class inherit from TestCase like the others, >> but I'd prefer not to introduce the explicit dependency on Junit if I >> can avoid it. >> >> Regards Kelvin. >> >> >> On 07/12/06, Robbie Minshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > This sounds quite good. >> > >> > I have written some test cases with Brian Murray which I would be >> > happy to contribute to tuscany. Identifying duplication and >> > differences in similar tests would probably be an intersting excercise >> right off the bat. >> > >> > One decision that we spent a little time mulling over was the >> > framework to use for our test suite. Originally we used the much >> > loved junit harness which worked well. Different runtimes ( command >> > line, J2EE Application Server, a Service Container ) have different >> classloader hierarchies etc. >> > Without many modifications to the junit code it was difficult and >> > quite ugly testing SDO within the context of a variety of runtimes >> > which the SDO APIs will be used. >> > >> > We took the approach of writing general test libraries which can then >> > simply be called from a variety of test frameworks such as junit or a >> > simple J2EE or SCA Application test harness. I like this approach for >> >> > keeping the actual test code very simple, allowing for integration a >> > variety of test frameworks, and providing ability to test directly >> > within the different runtimes people care about. >> > >> > Any thoughts on this ? >> > >> > Robbie >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 12/1/06, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> > > >> > > Andy, >> > > please attach them to the JIRA for this work and one of us can >> > > pick them up, thanks. >> > > Best Regards, Kelvin. >> > > >> > > On 01/12/06, Andy Grove (Contractor) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Dan, >> > > > >> > > > I was previously working with Kelvin Goodson to donate some junit >> > > tests >> > > > on behalf of Rogue Wave Software. >> > > > >> > > > These tests are written purely to the SDO API and I have validated >> > > that >> > > > the tests do run against Tuscany as well as Rogue Wave's >> > > implementation. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Should I send the tests to Kelvin? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > >> > > > Andy. >> > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: Dan Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] >> > > > Sent: 30 November 2006 17:44 >> > > > To: Tuscany Developers; Tuscany Users >> > > > Subject: Proposal for a (Java) community test suite for SDO >> > > > >> > > > I would like to propose starting a community test suite for >> > > > service >> > > data >> > > > objects (SDO CTS) implementations written in Java. Based on >> > > > feedback from an earlier post this seems to be the first logical >> > > > step in getting interoperable SDO implementations in all >> > > > languages. I can see this leading to an interoperability test >> > > > suite to check serialisation between implementations also works >> > > > (across languages and implementations). >> > > > >> > > > Proposal for Community Test Suite (CTS) for SDO Develop a test >> > > > suite to validate an SDO implementation behaves as expected, >> > > > according to the community's understanding of the SDO >> specification. >> > > > Should >> > > > the specification appear ambiguous or unclear then the community >> > > > will decide what to do; it may decide to test the area with an >> > > > agreed expected behaviour, or decide not to test this area. >> > > > Ambiguities will be fed >> > > back >> > > > to >> > > > the specification group for clarification. Although we will run >> > > > this against Tuscany, the test suite will only test things that we >> >> > > > think any implementation should support. >> > > > >> > > > The SDO CTS will enable developers to choose or switch SDO >> > > > implementations without the concern of having to re-code a >> > > > significant proportion of their application due to differences >> > > > between implementations. This community test suite will first >> > > > focus on areas identified important to developers of >> > > >> > > > SDO >> > > > applications. SDO users feedback and involvement will be crucial >> > > > to >> > > the >> > > > success of this effort. Over time this may grow to include a large >> >> > > > proportion of the SDO specification, however the suite should grow >> >> > > > according to the community's desire, rather than attempting to be >> > > > a validation >> > > or >> > > > compliancy suite. >> > > > >> > > > To encourage everyone with an interest in SDO to contribute and >> > > > use >> > > the >> > > > suite, I propose we : >> > > > >> > > > 1. Create a separate module in SVN to separate this from >> Tuscany >> > > > components and testcases. >> > > > 2. Make use of a java package namespace that is not >> attributable to >> > > > either Tuscany or any other SDO implementation: test.sdo >> > > > 3. Refactor some of the existing Tuscany SDO Java test cases to >> >> > > > remove >> > > > any Tuscany specific coding and re-package these to the >> test.sdo >> > > > namespace. >> > > > 4. Accept tests from anyone who wishes to contribute them under >> >> > > > normal >> > > > Apache contribution conditions. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > SDO users involvement will be crucial to this effort, developers >> > > > of >> > > SDO >> > > > implementations will benefit by contributing to and consuming a >> > > > community test suite, rather than working on their own. >> > > > >> > > > Who's up for working on this with me ? >> > > > >> > > > If you are interested in joining this effort; have any concerns, >> > > > comments or suggestions please append them... >> > > > >> > > > Thanks in advance to all those who volunteer :) Dan >> > > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > * * * Charlie * * * >> > Check out some pics of little Charlie at >> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/ >> > >> > Check out Charlie's al crapo blog at >> > http://robbieminshall.blogspot.com >> > >> > * * * Addresss * * * >> > 1914 Overland Drive >> > Chapel Hill >> > NC 27517 >> > >> > * * * Number * * * >> > 919-225-1553 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
