Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Vladimir Egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Which parts of AntUnit would you use? Only the assertions or the tasks and listeners as well? Currently we are only interested in asserts library. Which is pretty easy to keep working cross-version since most of it consists of macrodefs anyway. We certainly couldn't use conditions created in 1.7 (regexp, for example). It is easy to write them, but it would not be good if the same thing was done differently in different projects. Of course not. What is your take on this? I mean, some generic asserts are the same for AntUnit, WebTest, and TestLogic, but some are specific to the project. Do you think it is worth the effort to standardize on a common asserts library and what should be the extension mechanism? I'd leave them in AntUnit and think it should be possible to keep a 1.6.5 compatible branch for them. In the future, we may be interested in AntUnit runtime (task and listeners) as well, depending on the direction our project takes. Which would require more work since more code is written in Java then. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Vladimir Egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an open source testing framework for the enterprise. [...] The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity My personal advice would be to go public as soon as you can. It is far easier to attract new contributors if the code base isn't too polished and there are still obvious places to work on. If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be interested to learn the outcome of this discussion. Paul is subscribed here as well, haven't seen him chime in, yet. It is mostly a question of how much ongoing work it would take when we add new features to AntUnit. Which parts of AntUnit would you use? Only the assertions or the tasks and listeners as well? Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
-Original Message- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:14 AM To: dev@ant.apache.org Subject: Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Vladimir Egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an open source testing framework for the enterprise. [...] The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity My personal advice would be to go public as soon as you can. It is far easier to attract new contributors if the code base isn't too polished and there are still obvious places to work on. Ok. I will see what I can do. If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be interested to learn the outcome of this discussion. Paul is subscribed here as well, haven't seen him chime in, yet. Here is a snippet from Paul's email where he told me about WebTest: -Original Message- From: Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:28 PM To: Vladimir Egorov Cc: Vishal Vishnoi; Gouri Pandeshwar Subject: Re: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility [..] WebTest is available at: http://webtest.canoo.com It provides a complete testing framework for web applications, web services and email systems. WebTest has the notion of a test step. Each step is just an Ant task with a context and hooks for reporting. At the moment WebTest assertions don't extend AntUnit. They are all Ant Tasks and throw StepFailedException or StepExecutionException if an assertion isn't met. This in turn ties in with its reporting. At the moment we are looking at whether the verification steps should be made more like AntUnit. At the moment we don't want to give up Ant 1.6.5 compatibility and we aren't willing to give away the excellent reporting capabilities which WebTest is known for. There are many assertion steps. They all begin with verify. To give you a flavour, some of the ones related to web site and Ajax application testing are: verifyTitle,verifyText,verifyElement,verifyInputField verifyLinks,verifyXPath,verifyCheckbox,verifyCookie In your Ant script you would simply do: invoke url=http://dev2dev.bea.com/ verifyText text=UPCOMING EVENTS/ There are other assertions as well, e.g. on a pdf document: verifyEncryptionPermissions allow=fillIn deny=printing, modifyContents, copy, assembly/ Emails you can test fields, content and attachments. Web Services you can test content and attachments using xpaths. Excel documents you can verify content and formulas. Note how verify*s are similar to assert*s. Also: we don't want to give up Ant 1.6.5 compatibility. Here is a snippet from Paul's last email on the subject. -Original Message- From: Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:30 PM To: Vladimir Egorov Cc: Vishal Vishnoi; Gouri Pandeshwar Subject: Re: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility [..] If you do decide on a technical direction for going forward on how to represent your assertions (e.g. making them more aligned with AntUnit assertions), I'd be keen to hear from you on just that piece if that is deemed acceptable. I am likely to make changes to how WebTest represents its assertions over the next few months and any feedback on what you believe to be a useful direction would be welcome. This brings us to your next question. Which parts of AntUnit would you use? Only the assertions or the tasks and listeners as well? Currently we are only interested in asserts library. It is easy to write them, but it would not be good if the same thing was done differently in different projects. What is your take on this? I mean, some generic asserts are the same for AntUnit, WebTest, and TestLogic, but some are specific to the project. Do you think it is worth the effort to standardize on a common asserts library and what should be the extension mechanism? In the future, we may be interested in AntUnit runtime (task and listeners) as well, depending on the direction our project takes. --Vladimir ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete
Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Vladimir Egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an open source testing framework for the enterprise. [...] The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity My personal advice would be to go public as soon as you can. It is far easier to attract new contributors if the code base isn't too polished and there are still obvious places to work on. Also, get on apache gump and build against the SVN_HEAD versions of all the other OSS projects, which means implicitly, a migration to Ant1.7+ That doesnt mean you have to commit to ant1.7 only, but you do make sure that ant1.7's changes dont break your app. -steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Stefan Bodewig wrote: If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be interested to learn the outcome of this discussion. Paul is subscribed here as well, haven't seen him chime in, yet. It is mostly a question of how much ongoing work it would take when we add new features to AntUnit. Which parts of AntUnit would you use? Only the assertions or the tasks and listeners as well? I am listening but still pondering what the best path is before making further suggestions. WebTest has a focus on Acceptance Testing and has more extensive reporting than e.g. JUnit. AntUnit currently has sufficient listener capability and infrastructure to align it closely with JUnit-style tests. WebTest's steps are just Ant Tasks with a context. So it would not be impossible to make WebTest's verification steps AntUnit assertions with a context. It would be an interesting way to move forward but maybe it isn't critical at the moment. See the thread 'Property expansion notification interesting?' over the last few weeks to see one of the things we would need to solve first. I'll keep pondering, Paul. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Vladimir Egorov wrote: -Original Message- From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:33 AM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility Vladimir Egorov wrote: Sorry for a bit of a messy entry into the list. I did not realize that using html email could be a problem. Thanks Stephan for pointing this out. My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare. Could you please expand a little on TestLogic for the rest of the Ant developers? TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an open source testing framework for the enterprise. The flavor of this effort is to provide the glue that would tie together existing frameworks (e.g. JUnit) in a consistent manageable way. Over time, we want to cover the breadth of the enterprise testing needs, based on our knowledge of BEA Systems Inc. testing needs. The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity and can get clearance, hopefully within 2-4 month. That's interesting. Have you seen the work I'm doing with deployment of junit3/4/testng+other frameworks and merging of results No we haven't seen your work. The 'merging of results' does sound like the kind of thing we are doing; it would be interesting to learn more from the links you kindly provided. uniform serialization of results for over-RMI comms, and (b) some evolving XML format. For (b) I've got marked up XHTML, but am thinking of how to use Atom to integrate results, a polling app and log data: http://smartfrog.org/presentations/distributed_testing_with_smartfrog_sl id es.pdf http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=smartfrog We currently want to stay away from RMI as in our prior experience framework RMI sometimes interferes with server RMI in unexpected ways. Also we want to support non-java frameworks (e.g. WinRunner) via single protocol. We use RMI internally, but yes, we do want a wire protocol that is better long haul. One thing I'm thinking of for results is to publish stuff as Atom, but maybe also add a RESTy way of running Tests. I'd back this up with a servlet that could be deployed inside a web app/EAR, to do cactus-style running of tests inside an app server. I think cactus is wonderful, but dont see why you need to instantiate every test class inside the client-side machine, except for compatibility with legacy test runners. Uniformity of both the java format and the xml output would be very beneficial, and putting the stuff into antunit and junit and junit4 is part of my goal. We are trying to with existing frameworks with minimum modifications. For example, we support junit by adding a custom nested formatter (listener) that knows how to talk to us. I was looking at tweaking that myself, but its complex because forked junit instantiates the listener in the remote process, where its hard to configure. With a cross-process run (in which the forked test run feeds results as serialized data or XML) you dont need that; the custom listener can live in ant's process. If we come up with a new XML format, I'd just patch it in to junit, antunit and presumably, the junit4 task as and when I sit down to write it. -steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Vladimir Egorov wrote: Sorry for a bit of a messy entry into the list. I did not realize that using html email could be a problem. Thanks Stephan for pointing this out. My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare. Could you please expand a little on TestLogic for the rest of the Ant developers? TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an open source testing framework for the enterprise. The flavor of this effort is to provide the glue that would tie together existing frameworks (e.g. JUnit) in a consistent manageable way. Over time, we want to cover the breadth of the enterprise testing needs, based on our knowledge of BEA Systems Inc. testing needs. The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity and can get clearance, hopefully within 2-4 month. That's interesting. Have you seen the work I'm doing with deployment of junit3/4/testng+other frameworks and merging of results using (a) a uniform serialization of results for over-RMI comms, and (b) some evolving XML format. For (b) I've got marked up XHTML, but am thinking of how to use Atom to integrate results, a polling app and log data: http://smartfrog.org/presentations/distributed_testing_with_smartfrog_slides.pdf http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=smartfrog Uniformity of both the java format and the xml output would be very beneficial, and putting the stuff into antunit and junit and junit4 is part of my goal. One place needs to be the root repository (with a license everyone likes i.e. apache), with reuse everywhere. This causes trouble with java serialization (you cannot repackage stuff), but would work for XML formats. To support writing tests in Ant, we want to offer a library of asserts. We want start with antunit asserts, and have the ability to enhance (e.g. add new ones). Unlike AntUnit, we don't require asserts to throw AssertionFailedException. Do you have any suggestions for us? If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be interested to learn the outcome of this discussion. How long do you expect TestLogic to stick with 1.6.5? We have recently migrated from 1.6.2 to 1.6.5, and we are being told that migrating to 1.7 is not in the near future. ah, well, you get to miss out on the test format improvements I'm planning for Ant1.7.1 and up :) -steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
-Original Message- From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:33 AM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility Vladimir Egorov wrote: Sorry for a bit of a messy entry into the list. I did not realize that using html email could be a problem. Thanks Stephan for pointing this out. My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare. Could you please expand a little on TestLogic for the rest of the Ant developers? TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an open source testing framework for the enterprise. The flavor of this effort is to provide the glue that would tie together existing frameworks (e.g. JUnit) in a consistent manageable way. Over time, we want to cover the breadth of the enterprise testing needs, based on our knowledge of BEA Systems Inc. testing needs. The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity and can get clearance, hopefully within 2-4 month. That's interesting. Have you seen the work I'm doing with deployment of junit3/4/testng+other frameworks and merging of results No we haven't seen your work. The 'merging of results' does sound like the kind of thing we are doing; it would be interesting to learn more from the links you kindly provided. uniform serialization of results for over-RMI comms, and (b) some evolving XML format. For (b) I've got marked up XHTML, but am thinking of how to use Atom to integrate results, a polling app and log data: http://smartfrog.org/presentations/distributed_testing_with_smartfrog_sl id es.pdf http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=smartfrog We currently want to stay away from RMI as in our prior experience framework RMI sometimes interferes with server RMI in unexpected ways. Also we want to support non-java frameworks (e.g. WinRunner) via single protocol. Uniformity of both the java format and the xml output would be very beneficial, and putting the stuff into antunit and junit and junit4 is part of my goal. We are trying to with existing frameworks with minimum modifications. For example, we support junit by adding a custom nested formatter (listener) that knows how to talk to us. One place needs to be the root repository (with a license everyone likes i.e. apache), with reuse everywhere. Yes, we are planning to open source under Apache license. This causes trouble with java serialization (you cannot repackage stuff), but would work for XML formats. Yet another reason to stay away from RMI. To support writing tests in Ant, we want to offer a library of asserts. We want start with antunit asserts, and have the ability to enhance (e.g. add new ones). Unlike AntUnit, we don't require asserts to throw AssertionFailedException. Do you have any suggestions for us? If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be interested to learn the outcome of this discussion. How long do you expect TestLogic to stick with 1.6.5? We have recently migrated from 1.6.2 to 1.6.5, and we are being told that migrating to 1.7 is not in the near future. ah, well, you get to miss out on the test format improvements I'm planning for Ant1.7.1 and up :) -steve I am looking forward to learn more about your work. Thanks, :) --Vladimir ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Sorry for a bit of a messy entry into the list. I did not realize that using html email could be a problem. Thanks Stephan for pointing this out. My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare. Could you please expand a little on TestLogic for the rest of the Ant developers? TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an open source testing framework for the enterprise. The flavor of this effort is to provide the glue that would tie together existing frameworks (e.g. JUnit) in a consistent manageable way. Over time, we want to cover the breadth of the enterprise testing needs, based on our knowledge of BEA Systems Inc. testing needs. The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity and can get clearance, hopefully within 2-4 month. To support writing tests in Ant, we want to offer a library of asserts. We want start with antunit asserts, and have the ability to enhance (e.g. add new ones). Unlike AntUnit, we don't require asserts to throw AssertionFailedException. Do you have any suggestions for us? If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be interested to learn the outcome of this discussion. How long do you expect TestLogic to stick with 1.6.5? We have recently migrated from 1.6.2 to 1.6.5, and we are being told that migrating to 1.7 is not in the near future. ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Vladimir Egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My messages to dev@ant.apache.org keep bouncing. I attached the bounced message at the bottom. Am I using the correct alias? You are. Some context for all of [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Vladimir asked for an Ant 1.6.5 compatible branch of AntUnit that I once hinted at in an email. Since his mails bounced so far (my guess is because they are HTML mails) he contacted me directly and I already answered that the branch never was created and that AntUnit right now has a few more Ant 1.7 dependencies than it had back then. My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare. Could you please expand a little on TestLogic for the rest of the Ant developers? To support writing tests in Ant, we want to offer a library of asserts. We want start with antunit asserts, and have the ability to enhance (e.g. add new ones). Unlike AntUnit, we don't require asserts to throw AssertionFailedException. Do you have any suggestions for us? If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. The question is more about maintenence, commiting fixes and enhancements to two branches is a pain. How long do you expect TestLogic to stick with 1.6.5? Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
On 10/23/06, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 compatible branch. The question is more about maintenence, commiting fixes and enhancements to two branches is a pain. We may need two branches in any case - one for ant 1.7 and one for ant 1.8. Peter How long do you expect TestLogic to stick with 1.6.5? Stefan - 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]
FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Hi Stephan, My messages to dev@ant.apache.org keep bouncing. I attached the bounced message at the bottom. Am I using the correct alias? Here is what I tried to send. In particular AssertTask (which extends ConditionBase) relies on some core changes like TaskAdapter not wrapping BuildException in another layer or (build file) location information being part of ProjectComponent rather then Task. I am able to build AssertTask and ExpectFailureTask with ant-1.6.5 after removing calls to getLocation(). Building all of AntUnit with ant-1.6.5 used to be easy (comment one line out, as mentioned in the email I quoted), but now there is much more use of 1.7 APIs. My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare. To support writing tests in Ant, we want to offer a library of asserts. We want start with antunit asserts, and have the ability to enhance (e.g. add new ones). Unlike AntUnit, we don't require asserts to throw AssertionFailedException. Do you have any suggestions for us? Thank you, --Vladimir From: Vladimir Egorov Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:35 AM To: 'dev@ant.apache.org' Subject: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility Resending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] My original email bounced with mailbox full error (unfortunately I lost it). -Original Message- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:06 PM To: Vladimir Egorov Subject: Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility Hi Vladimir On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Vladimir Egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My email to dev@ant.apache.org bounced (mailbox full). Please re-send it so that we can have a real discussion on-list. I've never seen a mailbox full message from any apache list so far, strange. Do you still have the bounce message around? I wonder if the idea to create antunit branch for ant-1.6.x ever materialized? No, it didn't. And by now it will probably be pretty hard to do since we've added a few 1.7 only changes. In particular AssertTask (which extends ConditionBase) relies on some core changes like TaskAdapter not wrapping BuildException in another layer or (build file) location information being part of ProjectComponent rather then Task. What would be the steps to start this effort? We plan to contribute if we can get legal clearance. Let's discuss this on-list. I'm in the process of preparing AntUnit 1.0Beta2 right now, BTW. Cheers Stefan Here is my original message. Hi Ant Dev, We want to use antunit with ant-1.6.5. In the archives, I found the following message by Stephan Bodewig. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-dev/200511.mbox/%3C87acgnlj [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder if the idea to create antunit branch for ant-1.6.x ever materialized? I did not find such branch in SVN (I guess this answers my question). https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ant/antlibs/antunit What would be the steps to start this effort? We plan to contribute if we can get legal clearance. Regards, Vladimir Egorov Tools Team, BEA Systems Inc. Vladimir Egorov Senior Software Engineer Phone: 415.402.7247 Mobile: 650.580-4701 Y!M: vladimir_egorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] BEA Systems, Inc. Corporate Office, USA 2315 North First Street San Jose, CA 95131 Fax: 408.570.8901 www.bea.com _ From: System Administrator Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:26 PM To: dev@ant.apache.org Subject: Undeliverable: RE: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Subject: RE: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility Sent: 10/19/2006 12:25 PM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: dev@ant.apache.org on 10/19/2006 12:26 PM The message could not be delivered because the recipient's mailbox is full. uslcmh01.bea.com #5.2.2 SMTP; 552 spam score (6.9) exceeded threshold ___ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
