-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I like the saving of the test results for another test. I know we are just starting the discussion, but I would like to though out at least for accounting, that some form of testing (not a test) needs to follow from a lot of different inputs , about 10,000, to finish with a compare of known results all ready stored. this is test all the math from beginning to end.
just my 2 cents Tim Ruppert sent the following on 3/7/2009 12:13 PM: > I've been a committer on a number of xxxUnit projects in the past and grew up > as one of the people bringing the agile development processes to many > different organizations, so I'd like to think that I'm pretty savvy on this > stuff. That being said, I've never been happy with the way the testing > frameworks work in OFBiz - some because of my ignorance, but mostly because > of the dependencies. I've built code in a test-driven environment and let me > just say that we had few bugs that weren't caught, so when people added > stuff, we knew just about each and every time when there were side effects > and were able to fix them quickly. > > What I'd like to see sometime soon is something that works like this: > > 1. Each test (note I did not say component or test suite or test group, I > said test) is totally independent. > > 2. Each test utilizes entity engine XML files to load the appropriate data > necessary for that test. > -- Sometimes this will mean loading the same or similar XML files a few times. > -- That's ok :) > > 3. Each test puts the db back in exactly the same state as it was before the > test. > -- I used to use DbUnit to do this in the past. > -- Did this for both WebTest tests (functional) and normal JUnit tests. > -- Worked like a charm. > -- This should be even easier for us because the Entity Engine can keep track > of all we do and roll it all back. > -- I know that Scott Gray has been working with this for a bit - and it would > be a HUGE win IMHO. > > 4. Utilizing the Entity Engine for better testing. > -- This is alluded to in #3 above about the roll backs. > -- It would also be cool if it could keep track of all you and BUILD an > entity engine XML file and save it if you like. > -- -- This should be super easy as well. > -- Then you could use these files you're generating in these tests for future > tests. > > Anyways, that's my wish list and something that if we start to get into > place, I think we can build TONS of new unit tests around the existing work. > It will make each everyone's lives easier and the project even more viable > long term. Looking forward to feedback whenever you guys get a chance, but I > really feel this is the way we should go. > > Cheers, > Tim > -- > Tim Ruppert > HotWax Media > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > o:801.649.6594 > f:801.649.6595 > > ----- "Vikas Mayur" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> Vikas Mayur wrote: >>> >>>>> How did it work? I reverted back to 660193, the last patch for >>>>> OFBIZ-1790, and the accounting tests failed. >>>>> >>>>> If they worked in the past, I'd like to know when. If so, then >> that >>>>> means something since then has caused them to break, and I will >> more >>>>> than gladly track that down. >>>>> >>>>> However, if they have never worked(which is what I'm strongly >>>>> suspecting), then I stand by my original assessment. >>>>> >>>> Do not know why it is not working for you and I have no >> idea/solution >>>> for this. >>> If you run the test individually, and follow the instructions in >> the >>> file, it'll probably work. >> Yeah, I think so. >> >>> >>> However, that's not how things are done. >>> >>> All tests are run together. Every testdef/*.xml file that is in >> any >>> ofbiz-component.xml is run one after the other, with no chance for >> any >>> manual setup between each test. >>> >>> In this circumstance, they do not work, and never did work. It is >>> this circumstance that an *automated* test case must work. >> I do not know what is the point here to discuss same thing again and >> >> again. I agree to your point of making test automated and lot of >> people have complaint about >> this in past but no one really come forward for the contribution. >> >> Its really useless point to discuss on that these things in the trunk >> >> are making you frustrated because they are not written properly so why >> >> not complain early in the process and not after a YEAR or so. Sorry >> man, no time to look back and why not fix them by yourself if you see >> >> issues. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJsuRtrP3NbaWWqE4RAimEAJ99mqdvwl3jclstkXA9cjaBfgV8ugCfdIdP ZBtaJ0YgJ/hXvNUFqa9WzPs= =KXdP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
