Sorry for the scare. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I did not delete any failing tests. I *fixed* the failing tests by having them wait on mutexes instead of using Thread.sleep().
What I *did* delete: - Duplicate tests - Massive amounts of copy & paste (refactor from having one activity per-test, to having all tests share an activity and passing the URL to load via the Intent) - Tests that had no assertions Examples of deletes: LifecycleTest: - https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commit/4358a0473094963b83335c683b43d7094aca6c44#diff-7753f0a08baabc682815c620354bb33c - It has no assertions (nothing was being tested) PluginManagerTest: - https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commit/4358a0473094963b83335c683b43d7094aca6c44#diff-5fa78a4d2b5c99cd3d1b923edfd07ad6 - It has only one test, and it's commented out. CordovaTest: - https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commit/4358a0473094963b83335c683b43d7094aca6c44#diff-0b78d46f0e845439f01d054238a17afb - has only commented out tests GapClientTest: - https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commit/4358a0473094963b83335c683b43d7094aca6c44#diff-d71ae4e49caa340447954c24f9670eba - Asserts the classnames of things. This is already covered by other tests FixWebView: - https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/commit/4358a0473094963b83335c683b43d7094aca6c44#diff-66f4f1b9fd4ceab56d347e88d574518b - Unused class IntentUriOverrideTest - This one shouldn't have been deleted. Got me here! It's easy to put back though (has only one assertion) I spent all of this time because *I agree* there is a lot of value in tests. I spent a lot of time to ensure that test app still runs in stand-alone mode, and that no real test was lost in this change. Please take some time to look at this before attacking it. I put a great deal of care into it. I'll wait before reverting the revert, but I don't see where the anger is coming from. Didn't we just recently discuss the desire to clean up the tests? On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm reverting this now, 37 tests with 4 failures is much better than roughy > 20 tests with 0 failures. (I didn't run the refactored tests, since > there's no point if critical tests are missing). > > On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 2:01:51 PM Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 Revert > > > > And please let's stop deleting what other people wrote just because we > > don't recognize it. These things should require discussion. > > > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think we should revert this refactor. With the new refactored tests, > > > they may pass but we lost a lot of the useful tests that we once had > and > > > these new tests have no value. I don't know why you took it upon > > yourself > > > to throw away all the JUnit tests that didn't pass, but that misses the > > > point. I would have rather had the old tests expanded upon instead of > > just > > > deleted on your personal whim. > > > > > > I honestly don't know what to say, I know that we have a terrible > working > > > relationship at best, but this actually is making the project worse > > > intentionally for unknown reasons. In fact, I would almost say that > this > > > is purely a malicious change driven by ego, since I can't see a > technical > > > reason for any of it. > > > > > > On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 1:36:19 PM Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I think there's a lot of value in the Unit Tests, having wrote the > > > > majority of them initially. If I wasn't dealing with everyone in my > > > house > > > > getting sick, I'd check to make sure these tests were still testing > > what > > > I > > > > intended them to test, since we have a habit of losing the intent > > behind > > > > the test every time we do a refactor. > > > > > > > > Of course, if we're going to throw away the embedded WebView case, > then > > > > maybe there's not value after all. > > > > > > > > On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 1:12:29 PM Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Does travis provide Android emulators? I'd guess it'd be too slow to > > put > > > >> on > > > >> Travis. And honestly, there's still not a lot of value in the unit > > tests > > > >> atm. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Murat Sutunc < > mura...@microsoft.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > This is great news! > > > >> > I've finally got the android travis enabled too. We have jshint > and > > > >> > jasmine test coverage on every commit now. ( > > > >> > https://travis-ci.org/apache/cordova-android/builds/50295748) > > > >> > > > > >> > Now that we're passing all junit tests, I think the next step for > us > > > >> > should be to integrate junit tests with travis. What do you think? > > > >> > > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > > >> > From: agri...@google.com [mailto:agri...@google.com] On Behalf Of > > > >> Andrew > > > >> > Grieve > > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:14 PM > > > >> > To: dev > > > >> > Subject: Android JUnit Tests Now Pass > > > >> > > > > >> > Spent some time cleaning up the tests. Certainly they could be > made > > > even > > > >> > better & made to test more things, but at least they pass now :) > > > >> > > > > >> > Much of the change was deleting copy & paste, and deleting > commented > > > out > > > >> > tests: > > > >> > 53 files changed, 941 insertions(+), 2610 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > --------- > > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
