Hi, The documentation provided with Cactus explains about how to integrate HttpUnit with Cactus.
I was more intrested in integrating HtmlUnit with cactus...Any suggestions?? Thanx, Vishal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicholas Lesiecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Cactus Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:31 PM 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. > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
