+1 on begin(WebRequest) end(WebRequest). I thought that was how it was done. Serves me right for not looking at the code.
Nick P.S. Erik always builds out of CVS so the 1.4 limitation won't bother *him*. :P --- Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > __________________________________________________ Yahoo! - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
