Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
With revision 431195 I modified the old test harness jdbcapi.runall
suite to run most of its JUnit tests through the single test/suite
jdbcapi._Suite. This _Suite can also be run directly by JUnit test
runners, though that yet does not install the security manager. The two
JUnit tests left in jdbcapi.runall are just because I didn't get round
to them, I think they were added after I created the _Suite (or I missed
them).
Hi Dan,
I see that tests are added in two different ways; either with
TestSuite.addTest(ATestClass.suite()) and
TestSuite.addTestSuite(SomeTestClass.class). Now, if I decide to add a
suite-method to SomeTestClass, then the logic I put into it will not be
executed if I forget to update the _Suite.suite-method.
Is this something we should:
a) catch during review
b) document in a checklist or similar
c) see if JUnit already has functionality for
d) write a utility method for, that checks for a suite-method and uses
it if it is available
I don't think it is a problem if you remove the suite-method of a test
class, as this will be caught at compile-time.
Regards,
--
Kristian
I have changes that enable the security manager for JUnit tests when run
standalone by JUnit test runners, but I need to test them more. (See
BaseTestCase.runBare).
This is a minor step in the direction of JUnit, more a sanity check to
see if there are any problems running tests like this.
I'll check the tinderbox builds later.
Dan.
Committed revision 431195.
Have the test harness jdbcapi run a single JUnit suite jdbcapi._Suite
that includes most of the JUnit tests
that were run individually. Tests in this suite that were excluded in
derby net or had _app.properties file
now self-exclude themselves based upon the JUnit utility methods
indicating which JDBC client they are running.
Remaining JUnit tests should be included in jdbcapi._Suite, think they
were added after I has started the _Suite
work.
