Vincent,
+1 on your suggestions of begin/end method refactoring!
Thanks,
Erik
Vincent Massol wrote:
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: 10 September 2002 20:49
>>To: Vincent Massol; Lesiecki Nicholas
>>Subject: Cactus security checking
>>
>>I'm going directly to the source on this one - rather than the lists
>
> :)
>
>> If you want to redirect me to an FAQ or to the list, feel free.
>
>
> No worries. However, I'm answering to the list as I'm sure others are
> facing this issue as well. I'd also like everyone's feedback on the
> proposal I'm putting below.
>
>
>>My team is integrating Cactus tests for session bean testing, and we
>>need to do role-based testing to ensure that a certain role cannot
>
> call
>
>>certain methods.
>>
>>Is it true that you need a beginXXX to set up security for every test?
>
>
> With Cactus 1.4, yes, it is true. You do it this way:
>
> webRequest.setAuthentication(
> new BasicAuthentication("testuser", "testpassword"));
>
> With Cactus 1.4 the only solution if you wish to share this is to put it
> in a method of its own and call this method from all your XXX tests that
> need authentication.
>
>
>>If so, is there anything that can be done to make this easier so that
>
> we
>
>>could, perhaps, simply write a base class that does the login and
>>subclass that for all our test cases and avoid writing a beginXXX for
>>every test?
>>
>>Thanks, and sorry if this is an FAQ or something I could have found if
>
> I
>
>>tried.
>
>
> No there isn't anything ATM. We need to invent it! :-)
>
> In Cactus 1.5 in CVS, there is a global begin()/end() but its goal is to
> be called only once per test suite (and not per test). From what you
> say, we need a begin/end that are called for before and after each test.
> This already exist with the setUp()/teardown() but they are called on
> the server side. Thus, we need that on the client side.
>
> Hum ...
>
> What about begin(WebRequest) and end(WebResponse) ?
>
> Now, do we leave the global begin()/end() or is it going to be
> confusing? Shall we choose other names for the global begin()/end()?
> Like init()/destroy()?
>
> Thinking about it, I'm not even sure they are a good idea as it is
> possible to achieve the same effect with:
>
> public static Test suite()
> {
> return new TestSetup()
> {
> public void setUp()
> {
> // global set up, client side
> }
> public void teardown()
> {
> // global tear down, client side
> }
> }
> }
>
> So maybe we should simply remove global begin()/end(), add
> begin(WebRequest)/end(WebResponse) and explain the TestSetup() stuff?
>
> Comments?
>
> -Vincent
>
> PS: I can get that implemented very quickly if we reach a consensus.
>
>
>> Erik
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
