Sure. I've attached it to QPID-3025. It's a work in progress but everything compiles and (I think) all the tests pass.
I was planning to refactor QpidTestCase to be more JUnit4-ish before creating the final patch, but haven't yet decided what is the best way to do that. On 2 November 2012 09:39, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good to me... > > Do you have a patch for this that can be reviewed right now (obviously we > want to hold off applying it until after the 0.20 branch is created). > > -- Rob > > On 2 November 2012 10:29, Phil Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like us to upgrade Qpid's Java test to use JUnit 4 rather than > > Junit 3. I believe this idea was floated a long time ago but never > > progressed. > > > > My motivations are: > > > > - It opens the door to us replacing our bespoke test exclusion framework > > with JUnit 4's Categories. This would allow each test to state which > > category it's in (eg SlowTest or Amqp010Only), so that you can run the > full > > test suite specifying which Category(s) to include or exclude. Note that > > it's hard to INclude a set of tests using our existing framework. > > > > - JUnit 4 bundles Hamcrest, which allows you to make more succinct and > > readable assertions. > > > > - More succinct way of asserting that a specific exception was thrown > > (@Test(expected=FooException.class) > > > > - assertEquals now supports arrays > > > > I have tried to do the upgrade and managed to get everything working. > Note > > that this requires a change to almost all of our test classes because the > > JUnit 4 way of specifying a test is to use @Test rather than extending > > TestCase. > > > > I propose that we do this upgrade in Qpid v0.22. Initially we would > leave > > our test exclusion framework as-is, migrating to use JUnit 4 Categories > in > > a separate piece of work. > > > > Would there be any objections to this? > > > > Phil > > >
