Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
John,
I found that indeed, using mainMethod.invoke(null,arguments) was
required and worked well. Thx.
I'm glad to hear that!
I noticed that you included this code change in your (rather large)
patch for DERBY-413. One consequence of this code change is that the
first parameter to RunClass.java ("Class theClass") is not used or
needed anymore, hence it should be removed (I don't think you included
this in your patch). This means that the classes instantiating a
RunClass object (RunTest.java at least, any others?) also need to be
modified somewhat. I guess it looks cleaner if we do this in a separate
patch - maybe even creating a new Jira issue - or what do you think?
I also think that it would not hurt adding some more comments to
RunClass.java. But, of course, there are limits to how much effort one
should put into feeding a dying horse...
I did modify a few tests classes to be public rather than have the
default package protection in addition, for the above approach did not
get around that limitation.
I did not investigate all tests in the derbynet(client)mats suites -
which includes jdbcapi, multi, jdbc20 and jdk14 suites, but most. I did
not run into any test that did an unfortunate System.exit in this bunch.
OK, that's good. I'll let the list know if I find more issues, but it's
not likely that I'll be looking very hard.
Still, even in those suites, there will still be a few tests that cannot
run ok with useprocess=false because they leave 'stuff' behind. I
probably spend most of the time working on this patch making individual
tests run 'clean'.
I've been thinking a method to clean up databases actually would be
really nice. We could hang it in RunTest.execNoTestProcess(). That way
we could run more tests with useprocess=false, and speed up the test
run. Recently a user also asked for this functionality...
[snipped links]
I'm wondering if this wouldn't be a nice thing to have after all...? A
washwombat() method?
Absolutely, I was wondering whether such a method existed somewhere
already myself, until I saw the e-mail you referred to.
I'm imagining it to be tricky though, 'd have to
cycle through metadata calls and loop to remove views and triggers etc
before tables... and ensuring no attempts at removing system stuff are
made... Anyone any thoughts on this?
I'm afraid I must pass on this for now - but I'm sure other people on
this list have the knowledge required to give some sensible input...
--
John
