I've just created the "Running the Classlib Tests" page [1], so that you could share your experience there :)
In the future we could add this stuff to the web-site, let's say, to the testing page [2], where certain package-specific conventions are proposed, but nothing is said about JUnit tests. What do you think? [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/RunningTheClasslibTests [2] http://harmony.apache.org/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html Best regards, Sveta -----Original Message----- From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 4:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [general] JUnit consistency, practices +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 >> > >
