On 7/5/06, joe kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Garrett,
What do you think about the current testing capabilities? If it's
sufficient, then there is no need to mess with it. I think the test
cases are fairly sparse and we would probably need more. If there will
be more test cases, it is worthwhile to evaluate other testing
frameworks since JUnit 3.8 has been modernized in the form of JUnit 4
and TestNG.
Well, there will obviously be new test cases, but I don't see how that
leads to "so we should dive into an evaluation of competing testing
frameworks". The existing stuff works just fine.
> Honestly, I'm not sure what the point of an evaluation is until we've
> actually hit something we can't do with our existing test
> infrastructure.
I think what you are saying is good for saving limited resources, but
to find something you cannot do with your existing infrastructure you
need only look as far as the JUnit 4 or TestNG features.
Here's an orthogonal question, why is it that Abdera can be built with
ant and maven, when there is make? If there was a java project
building with make, would it make sense to look at the alternatives?
Ant and Maven provide abilities /that we need/ that you cannot easily
do in make. They're also defacto standards in the Java world.
Neither of those are true for JUnit 4 or TestNG at this time, AFAIK.
-garrett
