IMHO we can start collecting info about running the classlib tests. I suggest to create a new wiki page, let's say, "Running The Classlib Tests" and add a link to it front the wiki front page > components > class library. ASA we get the clear picture of this issue and verify all the ways to run tests, we'll be able to post this info on the web-site. Want do you think? I'd be glad to help.
Best regards, Sveta -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Zakharov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices +1 for having the doc. But personally I don't know the way how to run tests from the particular test class (not to speak of individual test methods) using the current build system. So I don't really know what exactly should be copy/pasted. Or you was talking about by-hand test invocation cmd mentioned above? Thanks, 2006/12/5, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Agree! When I tried harmony on some applications, I found it is very > hard to run the test of application mainly because there is no > instruction for that at all. So I think it is also not very easy for > user who have interest to run tests of harmony. And a good instruction > may be good for having many user's help to run harmony tests on > various platforms. > > On 12/4/06, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps some kind of "How To Run The Classlib Tests" section on > > the website would be useful? (Assuming there isn't already one with > > this information in) Then none of us would have to remember - it > > would be right there to copy/paste :) > > > > Regards, > > Oliver > > > > > > Ivan Popov wrote: > > > Alexei, > > > > > > I agree that it is still possible to run JUnit tests from command line > > > even without having main() in the code. But I think it is easier to > > > run test by convenient way > > > > > > $ java -cp junit.jar TestClass > > > > > > rather than in a more complex manner > > > > > > $ java -cp junit.jar junit.textui.TestRunner TestClass > > > > > > Actually, I constantly forget the right spelling of the full class > > > name for TestRunner class and have to look into JUnit doc to specify > > > proper name for such a command line. Also, it would be inconvenient if > > > someone runs test from an IDE that does not support JUnit environment, > > > but launches test as a usual Java application. > > > > > > I don't insist on adding main() to each JUnit testcase, but I see no > > > reason for removing this functionality from those test where it > > > already exists. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > Ivan > > > > > > On 11/29/06, Alexei Fedotov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Ivan, Stepan, > > >> > > >> I personally set +1 for removing main() method. Any script or command > > >> line can be trivially modified to launch JUnit tests without main() > > >> method: one should just add junit.textui.TestRunner class before a > > >> test class name. > > >> > > >> $ java -cp junit.jar junit.textui.TestRunner TestClass > > >> > > >> I'm writing this trivial thing here because during our work on class > > >> library test enabling it was FAQ N1 for all C/C++ developers. > > >> > > >> Note, any JUnit test won't work without junit.jar anyway. If you have > > >> junit.jar, you have a standard test runner, which is also quite > > >> lightweight. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Thank you, > > >> Alexei > > >> > > >> On 11/29/06, Ivan Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > -1 for removing main(). > > >> > > > >> > I often run individual tests from command line or using scripts and > > >> > it's easier to launch them as a usual Java application. Also, this > > >> > facilitates creating separate bundle with test to attach to a bug > > >> > report or send to other people, who can just run it from command line > > >> > or use script with the all required options already specified, instead > > >> > of setting IDE for this test. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks. > > >> > Ivan > > >> > > > >> > On 11/29/06, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > 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 > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Oliver Deakin > > IBM United Kingdom Limited > > > > > > > -- > Tony Wu > China Software Development Lab, IBM > -- Alexei Zakharov, Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
