Hi,
I agree that testing against jar files does not work. But as I know the main idea of JUnit (according to Creators) is to run ALL test at the same time at least once a day. So QA person could run the test and analyze (using output information) what class has failed.
Again, Imagine situation when QA department is small or not present at all and developers are creating Test classes by themselves. I think it is reasonable to have a bunch of Test classes rather then one BIG Test suite.
So probably it is reasonable to create more abstract JUnitTask and then couple of more specific?
Sure. Not everybody works the same way. If you or anybody else feels like adding this, please do so. I will not, because I do not need and cannot use it, because we work the way I explained before.
I'll put a JUnit patch up, so you can start adding MatchingTask. OK?
- tom
Thanks, Konstantin
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 10:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JUnit task and friends
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Conor MacNeill) wrote:
>
> JUnit has its own concept for handling collections for tests, namely suites.
> Do we want to overlap that?
I can see, that it may be handy to run all tests defined in classes named Test*. This would be **/Test*. If others like it, it could be done. I do not like it for myself because: - Testing and QA are tightly coupled, and QA wants to know EXACTLY which tests are run. - Our tests usually run against jar files (QA wants to know exactly which clas, which version), so matching does not work in its current incarnation.
- tom
> --
> Conor MacNeill
> Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web: www.cortexebusiness.com.au
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Nazarenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] < mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2000 0:14
> To: 'Thomas Haas'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: JUnit task and friends
>
>
>
> Hi All,
> I am quite new in ANT/JUnit programming but I think it is a great idea to
> have Unit Testing framework (JUnit), which runs automatically using ANT.
> So I have a suggestion concerning Thomas?s realization of JUnitTask. I think
> it will be very helpful to derive JUnitTask from MatchingTask (not from
> Task). It will give us the possibility to specify what files we are going to
> test.
> For example: we have a bunch of test classes, lets say _t*.class. Using
> MatchingTask it is possible to perform recursive, automated ANT TEST through
> the entire tree of classes.
>
> Is this idea worth to work out or is it already implemented in some other
> way?
>
> Thanks,
> Konstantin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 4:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: JUnit task and friends
>
>
> Upon request a snapshot of the current JUnit task is provided.
> Except Path.java everything resides in the optional package for now. The
> development got stuck due to the current discussion about the future design
> of ant. The JUnit task needs a proposal to replace Exec with a more
> extensible and reusable version offering various other feattures (see
> OExec.java).
>
>
> NOTE
> - This version writes the output to RUNNING-TEST-<testname>.xml. The file is
> renamed to TEST-<testname>.xml on success and ERROR-<testname>.xml on
> failure. This has been done to be compatible with our old, makefile based
> build system and will be obsolete, once the backends are converted to XML.
> - Tests are not run if a file TEST-<testname>.xml already exists. This is
> used for fix/build/test cycles prior to committing changes to the
> repository.
> - Both features may be made confifurable and/or optional, as they may not be
> needed by everybody.
> - I started implementing only my features, as it first looked like beside
> Stefan Bodewig nobody is interested in this. It looks like I was wrong,
> great.
>
>
> TODO
> - provide a specialiced classloader to extend the classpath at runtime
> differently for every junit task.
> - in addition to the XML output provide ASCII output.
> - I am not 100% happy with the XML structure, but it is fine right now.
> - Docu
>
>
> As long as it JUnit is not part of ant, I will collect patches and submit
> them to the list.
>
> Let me know, what you think.
> - tom
