+1
Konovalova, Svetlana wrote:
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
