Cool, I could use the "test.list" :-)
On 7/25/05, John Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps you can just get away with a few key tests e.g. AxisBench for most > times and then when you change some substantial function or a particular > area that you don't know you can run all of them? > > I really think it's a benefit to have lots of small tests - waaaaay easier > to debug :-) > > > > > > Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 25/07/2005 16:09 > > > Please respond to > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > > > To Apache AXIS C Developers List <[email protected]> > > cc > > Subject Re: Common code in tests > > > > > > Yes I understood your suggestion to replace common code. > > My Suggestion to have a combined test was to make life easy specially > wehn testing quick changes. With the current test framework, one of > the problems that I have is that I have to run the whole test suite to > check for side efects. However, if I had few tests then it would have > been much easier to test minor/ncremental code changes. > > > > On 7/25/05, Craig Stirling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Rather than grouping tests together my mail was suggesting that within > the > > current tests there is common code which could be replaced by calling a > > central header file. This would reduce duplication of code within the > tests. > > > > Creating more complex tests is a seperate issue. This often makes > debugging > > of failing tests very difficult. Less complicated tests in a specific > area > > are much easier to debug and maintain. > > > > Thanks > > Craig > > > > <==============================> > > Craig Stirling > > Web Services Cleint for C++ Test Coordinator > > Tel: 249993 > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <==============================> > > > > > > > > > > Samisa Abeysinghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > 25-07-05 15:02 > > > > Please respond to > > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > > > > > > To Apache AXIS C Developers List <[email protected]> > > > > cc > > > > Subject Re: Common code in tests > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 from me too. > > > > I was infact once wondering of why not we have one large single test > > to test for many scenarios at once rather than having several tests. > > Like testing complex types, simple types and arrays could be combined > > together into one test program and we could use exception model to > > capture errors for different test scenarios within a single test > > program. > > > > It is always easy to have few tests that cover the whole space. > > > > Thanks, > > Samisa... > > > > On 7/25/05, Adrian Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > In addition to signal handling, it would also be good to include the > MS > > > VC++ 6 patch for cout of 64bit integers > > > #ifdef WIN32 > > > #ifdef Q168440_WORKAROUND > > > // Bug in MS Visual C++ 6.0. Fixed in Visual C++ .Net version. > > > // Cannot print an __int64 number with cout without this overloading > > > std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, __int64 i ) > > > { > > > char buf[40]; > > > sprintf(buf,"%I64d", i ); > > > os << buf; > > > return os; > > > } > > > > > > std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, unsigned __int64 i ) > > > { > > > char buf[20]; > > > sprintf(buf,"%I64u", i ); > > > os << buf; > > > return os; > > > } > > > #endif > > > #endif > > > > > > > > > I'm sure there are also other things to consider - perhaps providing a > > > macro to handle (unexpected) exceptions in a consistent manner? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Adrian > > > _______________________________________ > > > Adrian Dick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > > > > John Hawkins/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 25/07/2005 14:10:25: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > Good idea Craig. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Craig Stirling/UK/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 25/07/2005 13:40 > > > > > > > > Please respond to > > > > "Apache AXIS C Developers List" > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > cc > > > > > > > > Subject > > > > > > > > Common code in tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking through the tests it appears that lots of the code is common > > > > to many tests. Included below is an example from a specific test > > > > case. I have proceeded the common code with //example as well as > > > > making it an alternative colour and bold. > > > > > > > > There will be other bits of function that could be pulled out of > > > > testcases into common test header files as well. > > > > > > > > What do people think about the possibilty of separating common > > > > features within tests into a header file that is used by all the > > > > tests - so code wasn't duplicated and could be changed in one place. > > > > > > > > > ===================================================== > > > > > > > > #include "DataHandlerService.hpp" > > > > #include <axis/AxisException.hpp> > > > > #include <ctype.h> > > > > #include <iostream> > > > > #include <fstream> > > > > #include <string.h> > > > > #include <signal.h> //example > > > > > > > > void sig_handler(int); //example > > > > > > > > int main(int argc, char* argv[]) > > > > { > > > > char endpoint[256]; > > > > const char* > > url="http://localhost:80/axis/DataHandlerService";; > > > > > > > char *Result; > > > > url = argv[1]; > > > > bool bSuccess = false; > > > > int iRetryIterationCount = 3; > > > > > > > > signal(SIGILL, sig_handler); //example > > > > signal(SIGABRT, sig_handler); //example > > > > signal(SIGSEGV, sig_handler); //example > > > > //signal(SIGQUIT, sig_handler); //example > > > > //signal(SIGBUS, sig_handler); //example > > > > signal(SIGFPE, sig_handler); //example > > > > > > > > do > > > > { > > > > try > > > > { > > > > sprintf(endpoint, "%s", url); > > > > DataHandlerService ws(endpoint); > > > > ISoapAttachment *att=ws. > > > > createSoapAttachment(); > > > > char *text="This is a test message > > > > for attachment"; > > > > //Adding the content type as > text/plain > > > > > > > att->addHeader(AXIS_CONTENT_TYPE,"text/plain"); > > > > xsd__base64Binary b64b1; > > > > b64b1.__ptr = > (xsd__unsignedByte*)text; > > > > b64b1.__size = strlen(text); > > > > > > > att->addBody(&b64b1); > > > > //Calling the dataHandlerService, > > > > service will return content > > > > Result=ws.echoContent(att); > > > > > > > cout<<Result<<endl; > > > > //Calling the dataHandlerService, > > > > service will return content type > > > > Result=ws.getContentType(att); > > > > cout<<Result<<endl; > > > > bSuccess = true; > > > > } > > > > catch(AxisException& e) > > > > { > > > > bool bSilent = false; > > > > > > > > if( e.getExceptionCode() == > > > > CLIENT_TRANSPORT_OPEN_CONNECTION_FAILED) > > > > { > > > > if( iRetryIterationCount > 0) > > > > { > > > > bSilent = true; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > else > > > > { > > > > iRetryIterationCount = 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > if( !bSilent) > > > > { > > > > cout << "Exception : " << e.what() << > > > endl; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > catch(exception& e) > > > > { > > > > cout << "Unknown exception has occured" << endl; > > > > } > > > > catch(...) > > > > { > > > > cout << "Unknown exception has occured" << endl; > > > > } > > > > iRetryIterationCount--; > > > > } while( iRetryIterationCount > 0 && !bSuccess); > > > > cout<< "---------------------- TEST COMPLETE > > > > -----------------------------"<< endl; > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > void sig_handler(int sig) { > > > > //example > > > > signal(sig, sig_handler); > > > //example > > > > cout << "SIGNAL RECEIVED " << sig << endl; //example > > > > exit(1); > > > > > > > //example > > > > } > > > > > > > //example > > > > > > > > > > > > <==============================> > > > > Craig Stirling > > > > Web Services Client for C++ Test Coordinator > > > > Tel: 249993 > > > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > <==============================> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
