Hi Fed,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Loney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 05 February 2003 20:03
> 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.
Yeah, except that I haven't figured out yet how it could work... (I'm
not even sure it is possible using the JUnit framework - I'll need to
dive into the Junit source code a bit more though to verify this).
>
> 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.
>
The idea sounds interesting but I'm not sure if I understand correctly.
I can see 2 issues:
1/ If the aspect is part of the Cactus source code, then we'll need to
deliver our own junit jar as the aspect would need to be weaved
statically into the junit code (either sources or bytecode with AspectJ
1.1). Otherwise we would only be able to catch calls to JUnit, which we
can already do using standard java code.
2/ If the aspect is something to be used by the user, then the issue is
that it will complexify greatly the setup for the user who will need to
have AspectJ, set up his build, etc. I don't think this will be
acceptable.
Please tell me if there's something I don't understand.
Thanks
-Vincent
> 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]
