Nathan, Don't remove suite() method from javax.swing.text.AbstractDocument_AbstractElement_MASNoLockTest because it's there on purpose. Why it's there is explained in the javadoc comment to the test.
Regards, -- Alexey A. Ivanov Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division >-----Original Message----- >From: Nathan Beyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:27 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [general] JUnit consistency, practices > >There is a large amount of inconsistency across the tests and I'd like >to lobby for cleaning them up as much as possible. I'm of the opinion >that test code should be clean, simple and transparent. Here are some >of the more noticeable items that I'd like to cleanup. > >* Empty setUp/teardown methods - There are a number of tests that >override setUp and/or teardown methods, but are either empty or just >call the super implementation. > >* Singleton suite methods - There are some tests that contain a static >"suite" method that creates a TestSuite and adds one test (the test >class it's declared in). Are there any practical uses for these >methods? TestSuites are for grouping together tests to treat them as >one unit. Since these suites are just one test, it doesn't seem to >provide much value. > >* main method launching text runner - There are some tests that >contain "main" methods which run the enclosing test via a JUnit text >runner. Most IDEs have built-in support for JUnit and can launch any >test arbitrarily and Ant can do the same thing. Does anyone launch >tests via these methods? > >My proposal would be to clean up these inconsistencies by eliminating >them, but what does everyone else think? > >-Nathan
