On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.ya...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hacked on > it for a bit and still couldn't get a mini-cluster up and running :-/ >
Good on you Jesse. You put up a patch w/ your hackery so we can see the pain? > To resolve the cases where the powermock class-loading would be useful > (e.g. catching object creation to use your own mock, rather than using > factories or DI everywhere) we could use jmockit. Jmockit does the same > basic stuff as powermock (minus the nice reflection library), but it does > it through run-time code weaving for tests through the java agent > framework. > Does that mean we have to pass args to the JVM to run tests? > This will give us really fine grained access to the code under test without > having to do a lot of funky rewrites. However, code-weaving comes at the > cost of loosing debugger usage as the code-weaving messes with the > bytecode. I'd argue that its a small price to pay for getting highly > controllable tests, *as long as we don't go overboard with the > weaving.*Yes, when we start doing too much test weaving it can become > untenable, but > it can be really useful for many situations without having to write > funky/awkward code. > > What do ya'll think? > Thanks for digging in J, St.Ack
