> The design goal should be to execute a vanilla JUnit TestCase in a web > container without a rebuild or reconfiguration. If the ServletTestSuite > in option 2b consisted of TestCase objects rather than CactusTestCase > objects, that would be preferable.
Could you explain more about the rationale behind this? Why is it better to use a vanilla test case than a Cactus one? I think I see where you're going, but I want to understand a little better. I'm not sure an aspect is necessary for this. It depends on the requirements. Cheers, Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Loney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 12:03 PM > To: Cactus Users List > Subject: Re: Single test class for both local and remote > > > The design goal should be to execute a vanilla JUnit TestCase in a web > container without a rebuild or reconfiguration. If the ServletTestSuite > in option 2b consisted of TestCase objects rather than CactusTestCase > objects, that would be preferable. > > Stepping back, this problem is an ideal example of an aspect: Cactus > behavior is introduced at strategic cutpoints without modification to > the source code. An alternative, then, is to provide a Cactus aspect > rather than a new Cactus class. The developer is then free to use the > Cactus aspect in whatever way fits his usage model. E.g.: > > In app: > > test.local.MyTestCase extends TestCase { > ... // test methods > } > > test.web.MyServletTestCase extends MyTestCase { > // no test methods > } > > In Cactus distribution: > > aspect Cactus { > ... // Cactus behavior introduced into TestCase method calls > } > > In Ant build: > > <target name="server-testbed"> > <ajc ... > > <src> > <pathelement location="/tools/cactus/Cactus.ajc"/> > <pathelement location="${source}/test/web"/> > </src> > </ajc> > </target> > > This alternative enables a number of approaches for enabling Cactus > rather than stipulating a single mechanism. > > Note that the Cactus aspect described here is dynamic; it is not > equivalent to a static aspect that changes the superclass from TestCase > to ServletTestCase. > > Fred Loney > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Cactus Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:49 AM > Subject: RE: Single test class for both local and remote > > > > Hi Fred, > > > > I have thought this morning about how to offer the "offline" feature > for > > Cactus. I think it is possible relatively easily. Here's a proposal > > below. Tell me what you think of it. If you think it will solve your > > usecase, I'll make a formal proposal with more details. > > > > Proposal: > > > > * 3 ways to write a Cactus test case: > > 1/ MyTestClass extends ServletTestCase (or JspTestCase, etc). This > is > > the same a now > > 2/ MyTestClass extends CactusTestCase, and: > > a/ it needs a "suite()" method such as: > > > > public static void suite() > > { > > TestSuite suite = new ServletTestSuite(); > > // or JspTestSuite(), etc. > > > > // For a pure Junit test > > // TestSuite suite = new TestSuite(); > > > > suite.add(new TestTest("testPassed")); > > suite.add(new TestTest("testFailed")); > > suite.add(new TestTest("testErrored")); > > return suite; > > } > > > > b/ there is no suite() method but the "cactus.type" system > parameter > > is passed to the JUnit Test Runner JVM. Its possible values are: > > "servlet", "jsp", "filter" or "none" (can also be called "junit"). The > > last one is a pure junit test. The advantage of b/ is that the choice > of > > offline/online is decided externally to the test case. It may make > sense > > for some cases, such as the one you mention, Fred. > > > > I won't enter in the details of the implementation but I think I have > > thought them out and it may work. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Fred Loney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: 05 February 2003 07:01 > > > To: Cactus Users List > > > Subject: Re: Single test class for both local and remote > > > > > > The reason for the todo item is local/server regression testing. The > > > application framework I use insulates most of the code from the > > > container context. Thus, one can code and test locally quickly, then > > > occasionally deploy and test on the server using the same code base. > > > > > > The only hitch is that the test case must derive from > ServletTestCase > > > for server testing. The work-around I use is to pair a small > TestCase > > > with a small ServletTestCase, both of which do nothing more than > > > delegate to a common test exerciser object. > > > > > > It is not clear that the todo item that I initiated is necessary, > > > although there might be other uses. It would be worthwhile to keep > the > > > item open for a while. > > > > > > Fred Loney > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "'Cactus Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:47 AM > > > Subject: RE: Single test class for both local and remote > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > > > Yes, it may make sense in some situations. This is why we've added > a > > > new > > > > todo in the Cactus todo list > > > > (http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/todo.html) about: > > > > > > > > "Ability to write Cactus tests by extending normal JUnit TestCase > > > > instead of Cactus extensions (by using special Cactus TestSuite > > > > objects). This will allow to easily execute the same test outside > > and > > > > inside of the container (for test not depending on container > > objects). > > > > Idea suggested by <link href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>Fred > > > > Loney</link>." > > > > > > > > Now, for your problem at hand, what would be the issue about > running > > > > both the remote and local EJB class from a ServletTestCase? Is it > a > > > > question of speed only? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Tim McNerney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: 04 February 2003 01:00 > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Single test class for both local and remote > > > > > > > > > > I want to build a test which works both locally (on the client > > side) > > > > and > > > > > remotely (on the server side). This is basically testing the > local > > > and > > > > > remote interfaces of an EJB. Since much of the code would be the > > > same > > > > > for both, I'd like to keep it in one class. Let's say I'm using > > > > > (extending) a ServletTestCase for the server side test. Is there > > > some > > > > > way for me to tell my test class not to connect to the test on > the > > > > > server side but simply run the test locally? > > > > > > > > > > And I'm making any sense? > > > > > > > > > > --Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
