Junit 4 has @ignore annotation which of target is method, which can
ignore failing methods.
But some modules, such as luni, have different exclude lists on
different os or vm, I haven't
found any ways to do this using @ignore annotation. While TestNG's
@group annotation
can do this easily, just define groups for different exclude lists.
Best Regards,
Regis.
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
As far as I understand in spite of the fact there were no
TestNG-related discussions since 2006 the problem is still relevant.
There are big exclude lists in some classlib modules still, and many
tests are excluded only because of a couple of failing methods.
Frankly speaking I'm not familiar with new feature introduced in Junit
4.4. Are there any enhancements that can help to resolve this
exclude-whole-class-because-of-one-bad-method issue?
Thanks,
Alexei
2008/6/11, Regis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Regis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Matcher and Assumptions are great ideas! Thanks Nathan.
They would be very helpful for our new test cases. But I notice that
Junit 4.4 doesn't support group which is very important feature for
both old tests and new tests. We can partition our test suite and run
them separately. It's make our tests more flexible and configurable,
and it's the main reason we discuss to migrate to TestNG long time ago.
Don't we partition our tests already? Isn't that what the 'api' and 'impl'
folders are about?
Yes, but it's not enough. We have discussed and created a wiki page[1] about
how
to configuration and group harmony tests. The page is a little old, but I
think the problems
it tried to resolve still exist now. The partitions are not only include
'api' and 'impl', but also
include partition of different os, architecture, partition of broken tests
and level of tests.
folder structure or exclude files can't help in this complex situation, so
we need some tools
to help us to deal with this, i think TestNG is suitable. If JUnit 4.4 can
do it, i will vote to JUnit,
update to a new version is always easier than switch to a new tool after
all.
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention
Best Regards,
Regis.
-Nathan
Best Regards,
Regis.
Nathan Beyer wrote:
That discussion was a very long time ago. Is there still value in
TestNG?
I'd prefer to move to JUnit 4.4. All of our current tests will
continue to
work and new tests can be implemented using the latest conventions and
older
tests can be updated as we get to them. JUnit 4.4 is a far cry from
4.0.
Here's the things I think would be create for our use and testing in
general
- Matchers and the 'assertThat' - much more readable code and readable
failure messages
- Assumptions and the 'assumeThat' - allows methods to add statements
that
guarantee that preconditions for the test are correct; this allows
tests
to
fail such that you know it's an environment issue and not an actual
test
failure
If you're not familiar with matchers, check out this quick tutorial -
http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/wiki/Tutorial.
-Nathan
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi, all.
We had discussed the migration to testNG before and got some
conclusions
for
grouping[1]
including how to deal with boot path test[2]. Am i missing
something?
Is it still in our schedule? I think it's valueable to Harmony.
I volunteer to carry out this job if no one objects. Any other
volunteers?
IMHO, we can only add some ant tasks to integrate testng at the
beginning.
So our original junit tests can still work at the mean time when
migrating.
When one module's migration task is finished, we can judge the
result
to dertermine whether we should go on for other modules.
Maybe we can create a branch for luni to start this work, shall we?
therefore there won't be any impact on other's development.
Once it is completed in the branch, we could merge it back to our
trunk.
Does it make sense?
Any sugestions or comments are welcomed. Thanks very much.
[1]
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention
[2]
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg12413.html
[3]
http://testng.org/doc/documentation-main.html#annotations
--
Best Regards
Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
China Software Development Lab, IBM
