Hi Vincent, No I don't have no patch to provide you for Session EJB testing. It was not a criticism, just my general feeling and what I would like to see included in Cactus. BTW, I just found that there is some new content about that matter on the website (I haven't read it for several months), and I'm very happy about it. I'll look closely at it tomorrow at work.
Interresting thoughts about mock objects. Alright, I haven't used it a lot, but once again it's so easy to deploy an EAR, so why bother? (Unless you're working with Websphere, of course!!). ok ok, I'll have to buy your book. Just one condition : can I have an autograph? :-P Julien. Le Dimanche 14 Septembre 2003 20:54, Vincent Massol a �crit : > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julien Dubois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 14 September 2003 20:43 > > To: Vincent Massol; 'Cactus Users List' > > Subject: Re: Server Side Testing ejb implementation code > > > > Hi Vincent, > > > > I had a look at the "Cactus goals" page, and I've got some comments. > > > > 1. From my point of view, Cactus seems to be great for testing the > > presentation layer of a J2EE application (servlets, JSPs, taglibs...). > > But the thing that really interests me is Session EJB testing, as : > > > > - I'm using Struts. My JSPs are pretty simple (thanks Tiles & the > > several > > > third-party taglibs), and completly dumb (they just do presentation, > > no > > > logic). I don't need to write servlets or taglibs. > > > > - For the persistance layer I trust my app server (for entity beans) > > or > > > Hibernate. > > > > So as long as Session EJBs testing is not easy to do, I don't have > > much > > > use > > for Cactus. > > Ok. Do you have a patch? ;-) > > > 2. Some of my applications do not have a presentation layer. Testing > > them > > > with > > Cactus would be very difficult. > > > > 3. Mock objects are less and less useful. Using mock objects for > > testing > > > servlets could be interesing, but a complete app server is something a > > lot > > > more complicated. It's so easy to deploy your EAR in a real app > > server, > > > why > > bother using mock objects?? > > I don't agree. Mock Objects are extremely useful. The main benefit is > when they are combined when the test-first approach. The test-first > approach is still difficult to do with Cactus or any in-container > testing solution as it is still too slow. Also, you need to be able to > test your code without going all the way to the database. For several > reasons: one of them being that the code may not be written yet. A > second one is that you want your suite to pinpoint the exact cause of > the problem when it breaks and not resort to debugging. Third of course > is setup complexity (you need to set the database to the correct state > even if you're testing some logic that has nothing to do with the > database). Etc. > > <advertising> > Hey, I'd suggest reading my JUnit in Action book > (http://manning.com/massol) ;-) > </advertising> > > > 4. I think using DbUnit with Cactus makes a lot of sense. > > a. Because it is difficult to get a database in a known state by just > > using > > the EJBs. > > b. Because sometimes the only way to validate a Session bean method is > > to > > > have > > a look inside the database tables. > > Yep. This I cover in depth in chapter 11 of the book. For a simple > example, see also the book source code on SourceForge: > http://junitbook.sf.net. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Just my 0.02 Euros. > > > > Julien. > > > > Le Dimanche 14 Septembre 2003 14:14, Vincent Massol a �crit : > > > Hi Julien, > > > > > > Yes, ATM, there is a limitation in Cactus when it comes to testing > > EJBs. > > > > As we don't have an EJB redirector yet, we have to go through the > > > remote/local interface. This is only the case for EJB. For all other > > > types of J2EE components it works fine. > > > > > > Security roles should not be an issue. You have to decide what kind > > of > > > > test you want (functional or unit test). If you want to perform unit > > > testing, then you want to test the fine-grained details of the code > > > implementation. Simply do not use security in your deployment > > > descriptors for cactus tests for example. Or create a valid EJB > > security > > > > context before calling the EJB to test. > > > > > > WRT form-based authentication, it is already implemented. > > > > > > Your "idea" of the "root" Session Bean is exactly what is planned! > : > :-) > : > > > See the todo page on the Cactus web site. > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Julien Dubois [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 24 June 2003 23:09 > > > > To: Cactus Users List > > > > Subject: Re: Server Side Testing ejb implementation code > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, hi everybody, > > > > > > > > I'm a Cactus newbee too, and I'm having kind of the same problems. > > I'd > > > > > like to > > > > tests my EJBs. > > > > > > > > Like Martin, I can only tests EJBs which are visible to the > > servlet > > > > > container, > > > > and my Entity Beans are definitly not visible. This is not a major > > > > problem, > > > > my logic is in the Session Beans and they're the ones I'd like to > > > > > > test. > > > > > > > However, they're protected by a lot of different security roles, > > and I > > > > > find it > > > > very difficult to test them from Cactus. Implementing form-based > > > > authentication in Cactus would help (I see that is being worked on > > in > > > > the > > > > > > > CVS > > > > tree), however it would not solve all my problems. > > > > > > > > So I'm toying with one idea : > > > > Why not make a Session Bean, which would run as "root" (a > > unix-like > > > > "root" > > > > > > > role should exist), and which would inherit from > > > > > > junit.framework.TestCase? > > > > > > > It's just an idea, has anybody done something like that before?? > > > > > > > > Julien Dubois. > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 24 June 2003 19:56, Bayly, Martin wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > We're looking into using Cactus to improve integration unit > > testing. > > > > > We're > > > > > > > > > planning on using Cactus primarily for testing our ejb > > interfaces, > > > > but > > > > > > > > ideally we'd like to use it for server side testing of lower > > level > > > > > classes > > > > > > > > > in the ejb implementations e.g. data access classes for example. > > > > > > > > > > This raises the issue of visibility of those classes to the web > > tier > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > the cactus unit tests run. Currently, our deployed build is > > pretty > > > > loose > > > > > > > > and everything can see pretty much everything else. However, > > we're > > > > in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > process of tightening this up with the intention being that the > > web > > > > tier > > > > > > > > will only be able to see the ejb interfaces and the classes > > exposed > > > > by > > > > > > > > those interfaces. However, it won't 'conceptually' be able to > > see > > > > ejb > > > > > > > > implementation details. > > > > > > > > > > To a certain extent this depends on the class loading scheme > > used by > > > > the > > > > > > > > container - we're currently using weblogic 6 and in the current > > > > > > weblogic > > > > > > > > class loading scheme the web app can see all the classes in the > > ejb, > > > > as > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > ejbs are loaded using a single class loader, and the web app is > > > > > > loaded > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > child class loader of the ejb class loader. > > > > > > > > > > However, we don't particularly want to be tied to the current > > > > > > weblogic > > > > > > > > scheme. > > > > > > > > > > I was just wondering if other people have come across this issue > > and > > > > how > > > > > > > > have they tackled it. Does it mean we're going to have to > > deploy > > > > with a > > > > > > > > different structure for running server unit tests? I was kind > > of > > > > hoping > > > > > > > > the only difference in our test/production build would be the > > > > > > deployed > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > cases and cactus jars. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Martin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 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]
