About JUnit and friends. While extracting the pack200 code from the archive module I've realized that we still have AllTests.java ( junit test suite files ) in many modules. There is also some related code in the support/src/test directory. AFAIU it is an old stuff that isn't used anymore. Please correct me if I wrong. Shouldn't we do something with it? My assumption is that I don't need to recreate this at least for the new module since there are modules that currently do *not* have AllTests. Thoughts?
Thanks, 2006/12/22, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Agreed - they cause no harm and may also be useful for others. Regards, Oliver Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > My POV is that people don't have to create them, but if someone put > one in because for whatever reason, they found it useful, leave it > alone if it's not getting in the way > > geir > > Alexei Fedotov wrote: >> Folks, >> Have we decided anything consistent about having main() method in >> JUnit tests? I've just created one test. Should I add a main() method? >> >> Any decision is better than no decision. >> >> >> On 12/12/06, Oliver Deakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> That's great, thanks Sveta. Yes, I think this is definitely >>> something to >>> add to the main >>> website eventually - a full set of instructions (expanding the current >>> links to mail >>> archives into their complete command lines etc.) would be really useful >>> for any >>> first time Harmony developer (and some of us longer lived ones ;) ) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Oliver >>> >>> Konovalova, Svetlana wrote: >>> > 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?
-- Alexei Zakharov, Intel ESSD
