Sounds like a great idea.  What do you think Bill?

sean

On 9/22/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posted this awhile back on the user list, but what about the
> possibility of a "testing" renderkit?   The "encoding" would write
> values to a Map, and the "decoding" would read them from a Map.    As
> was pointed out before, it might not work with AJAX, but it'd
> certainly simplify a great deal of the testing.   You'd still need
> some kind of html-testing (maybe cactus) at some point to test the
> html render kit, but ideally, each render kit would be tested
> independently of everything else anyway.
>
> On 9/22/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A few comments/questions on Bill's proposal...
> >
> > The first is, do we want to go with Cactus, Cargo and Ant for this?  I
> > don't have a problem with this although we've talked off and on about
> > using Maven for this at some point.  Since our biggest Maven guru
> > (James Mitchell) is busy with some other stuff right now I say lets
> > stick with what we know.
> >
> > One thing I think we should do is check out what Craig and the gang
> > are up to in Shale.  They have all of these mock objects, etc that
> > they are using to test Shale.  Lets make sure they haven't figured out
> > something already that we could use or easily adapt for our use.
> >
> > There are a lot of extra dependencies but they are only for the build,
> > not the actual usage of myfaces or tomahawk so I don't think that's
> > too big of a deal.  One option is a separate target for downloading
> > the dependencies associated with the tests, but that might be a bit
> > much.  That does mean, however, that in order to build from the source
> > you are required to supply your own local jars or use
> > download-dependencies and download some jars that you might not have
> > otherwise needed.
> >
> > @Bill,
> >
> > You asked about breaking things with this new build.  Here is a good
> > rule of thumb for you to verify this.  Do an SVN checkout of
> > myfaces-current and then do a unit-test-all from current/build.  Then
> > do clean-all from the same dir (to reset things).  Then go to each
> > subproject and build indepedently (but in a logcial order b/c that is
> > still required).  So api/build unit-test, share/build unit-test,
> > impl/build unit-test, etc.  Also you should probably do the same for
> > dist-all at the top level and then dist at each of the subproject
> > levels.  Just to make sure that "one build to rule them all" still
> > applies.
> >
> > I will try the patch shortly when I get some much needed free time.
> >
> > sean
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/22/05, Enrique Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Yes, a good tutorial on the wiki would be great!
> > >
> > > 2005/9/22, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I believe that there is no problem for us in adding any dependencies
> > > > as long as they are ASL licensed...
> > > >
> > > > If you would write up some stuff on how to get started with testing,
> > > > it would be great - I hope we can then get the other developers
> > > > (including me) to write those tests as well.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 9/22/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21)
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > With the TCK behind us (thanks again to all who worked so hard on
> > > > > that) I figured it was a good time to work on getting cactus tests in
> > > > > place. My thinking behind Cactus is that we need to have the ability
> > > > > to do in container testing because some of the mock stuff is just too
> > > > > tedious. As background info I've been working on bug # 233 (empty
> > > > > date for inputCalendar) and its just too complex to test all the
> > > > > cases with mocks because of the amount of code that must be written
> > > > > to setup the mock env.
> > > > > -----/Original Message-----
> > > > > Good to hear that. Developing my own components I also have the 
> > > > > problems
> > > > >
> > > > > of testing. If we all join forces and know how on that, we can come up
> > > > > with a sample of testing components...
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > So I set out to get a cactus test env that I could execute container
> > > > > side tests in and I've gotten a fair way there.
> > > > > -----/Original Message-----
> > > > > good to hear
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > The Good:
> > > > > 1) Cactus gives us an alternative means to test (in the container)
> > > > > 2) Cargo integration will be a great way to build tests that
> > > > > automatically invoke the example code on a wide range of containers
> > > > > with each release. This will help us avoid problems with the various
> > > > > containers because of a lack of testing.
> > > > > -----/Original Message-----
> > > > > Cool. Maybe I should revive my ant-task for the Yourkit-profiler?
> > > > > Right now I have a web-app (done with JSF) and a servlet (for use
> > > > > with JMeter and similar) to control the Yourkit Profiler from 
> > > > > distance.
> > > > > For an old version I once had also an ant-task... but I seem to have
> > > > > lost that source...
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > The Bad:
> > > > > 1) more dependencies
> > > > > 2) we don't seem to have a ground swell of support for testing so
> > > > > this all might be for nothing
> > > > > -----/Original Message-----
> > > > > Dependencies are only for build and testing? Is that so bad?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > What are you thoughts? Since introduction of JUnit I've not seen any
> > > > > additional tests being added to the mix. Its a huge task to get test
> > > > > coverage but I think its worth it, we will significantly reduce the
> > > > > uncertainty in doing a release if we can get a good set of tests in
> > > > > place.
> > > > > -----/Original Message-----
> > > > > JUnit is on e part of the game. But with presentation layer stuff the
> > > > > incontainer-testing is a must. The applications that depend on Myfaces
> > > > > may not need it (maybe they also need it...), but the confidence the
> > > > > incontainer test can give is important for future changes...
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > I'm working on getting some more JUnit tests in place and would love
> > > > > to write up what is required if that would help others get started.
> > > > > -----/Original Message-----
> > > > > Way cool.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards
> > > > > Alexander
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > JSF Trainings in English and German
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to