Hi Dalibor,
I had meant to keep this on the Mauve lists, but I'll reply to the
Classpath list also...
Dalibor Topic wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:40:55AM +0000, David Gilbert wrote:
I didn't get any feedback about this...anyone think it is a good/bad idea?
excellent idea in my opinion. Have you looked at graydon's junit mauve
bridge at
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/mauve-discuss/2003-q4/msg00003.html ?
I hadn't seen Graydon's bridge class, thanks for the link (and I should
do more research next time). Looking over it, it has the advantage that
it doesn't require any existing Mauve testlets to be modified (and we
have a lot of testlets), but the disadvantage that it doesn't buy you
much in terms of integration with IDEs (you still have to generate the
test list ['classes'] file, for instance, which is the major stumbling
block that people seem to have when trying to run Mauve).
By modifying the Mauve testlets in the way that I proposed, you can (for
example) run a single test in Eclipse just by selecting the source file
and clicking 'Run as --> JUnit test'. I figured that was the sort of
thing people were expecting.
JUnit does seem to me to be less flexible in terms of selecting subsets
of tests, and it's approach of reporting a pass/fail for each test
method (only) makes it, in my opinion, less suitable for the type of
testing we are doing on GNU Classpath. But I was careful in the
"conversion" to retain the Mauve testlets so that we can continue
running the tests in the traditional (Mauve) way.
If we do something like that. I'd like to see the junit code from
freenet merged in, to keep it simple to run mauve without external
dependencies.
Agreed. I didn't have much trouble getting the tests to compile against
the freenet code (a basic GPLed implementation of the JUnit API for
those that don't know what it is) but didn't get any meaningful output
from running the tests against it yet. I don't think that will be too
hard to resolve.
Regards,
Dave
