Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
What we've tended to do, internally, is to name the testcases after the
type they are testing, so all unit tests for java.io.File are put into a
tests package ending with java.io in a type called FileTest that extends
the junit.framework.TestCase.
Yes - that's the canonical way. Put it the the same package as what
you are testing, and then use a common name pattern to make it easy to
configure ant or maven with a wildcard.
*/*/*Test
We would have written it as java.io.tests, but the java.<whatever>
namespace is reserved, so the formula is simply
<package>.<type> -> org.apache.harmony.tests.<package>.<type>Test
Ug - then you have the problem of not being in the namespace as what
you are testing.
THat's why people use parallel trees - so your test code is physically
separate but you have freedom of package access.
This makes it clear what is being tested, and where to add new tests
etc.
So would
test/org/apache/harmony/io/TestFoo.java
(to test something in org.apache.harmony.io, and arguable to test the
Foo.java class in there. (or TestFoo.java - it's early - no coffee yet)
Simiarly
test/java/util/TestMap.java
Then within the test class itself the methods are named after the method
under test, with a familar JNI-style encoding, so we have things like:
org.apache.harmony.tests.java.io.FileTest contains
public void test_ConstructorLjava_io_FileLjava_lang_String() {
...
}
and
org.apache.harmony.tests.java.lang.FloatTest contains
public void test_compareToLjava_lang_Float() {
...
}
...or whatever the convention is for JUnit. I think that's one of the
nice things about TestNG, is that it's annotated, so you have the
freedom there.
Agree with you that annotation is great, and I just wish JUnit 4 can be
released soon
(check out an intro here
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-junit4.html)
But even if we have more freedom, I think some convention is still
*precious*, this name contract between test and method is one example. At
least in Eclipse, I can easily find the test case for some certain
method simply by ctrl+o and key in "test_"+method name, that's natural
and easy, and if tests failed, I can see which method is wrong in just
one glance, so personally I'm willing to pay the price to convention 8-)
If the test is added due to a regression, then it is put into the right
place in the test suite, and flagged with a comment (i.e. a reference to
the Harmony JIRA number).
Yes - and I'd even advocate a parallel directory there too so that
it's clear that the regressions are different, but whatever. The only
snag there is name collision with the classes.
I think that a simple comment is enough. If we want to get cute,
maybe a javadoc tag so we can manage mechanically in the future.
geir
Regards,
Tim
George Harley1 wrote:
Hi,
I think that regression tests should be marked in some way.
Agreed. But can we please *resist* the temptation to do this by
incorporating JIRA issue numbers into test case names (e.g. calling
unit test methods test_26() or test_JIRA_26()). I've seen this kind
of approach adopted in a couple of projects and, in my experience,
it often leads to the scattering of duplicated test code around the
test harness.
Better, methinks, to either create a new test method with a
meaningful name or else augment an existing method - whatever makes
more sense for the particular issue. Then marking certain code as
being for regression test purposes could be done in comments that
include the URL of the JIRA issue. Perhaps an agreed tag like "JIRA"
or "BUG" etc could be used as an eye-catcher as well ?
e.g.
// BUG http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-26
My 2 Euro Cents.
Best regards, George
________________________________________
George C. Harley
"Mishura, Stepan M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/01/2006 04:56
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
<[email protected]>
cc
Subject
RE: regression test suite
Hello,
Tim Ellison wrote:
[snip]
What is the useful distinction for regression tests being kept
separate?
I can see that you may distinguish unit and 'system-level' tests just
because of the difference in frameworks etc. required, but why do I
care
if the test was written due to a JIRA issue or test-based development
or
someone who get's kicks out of writing tests to break the code?
I agree that separating regression tests doesn't make sense.
However I think that regression tests should be marked in some way.
This will signal a developer that a test was created to track already
known issue. IMHO, a regression test should point out to a bug report
and a bug report (after resolving a bug) should contain a reference to
corresponding regression test in repository.
Thanks,
Stepan Mishura
Intel Middleware Products Division
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
