Tim Ellison wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
<snip>
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.
For 'normal' application code then you can do this, but since we are
writing the java packages themselves then you come unstuck because the
java packages have to run on the bootclasspath, and the tests on the
application classpath.
I thought we figured this out chatting at ApacheCon, but I don't
remember what it was.
Is the tail wagging the dog here? IOW, is this code unit-testable in a
framework outside of being on the boot classpath in the running host VM?
IOW, can we mock an environemnt to help here?
You don't want to run all your tests on the bootclasspath (because then
it would not be subject to the same security sandboxing as applications
using the APIs you are testing); and you cannot put java.<whatever> on
the application classpath because the VM will catch you out (you'd get a
linkage error IIRC).
Right - but for unit tests, I would imagine there's a large class that
test functionality independent of this. Further, I think we'd want to
mock this so we can control the security sandboxing for more thorough
testing.
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)
Not sure what you are saying here... For java.<whatever> packages we
need a prefix on the test packages to keep the VM happy, but for
org.apache.harmony packages we can have either pre- or post-.
I'd actually prefer a postfix of .tests for non-API packages, though I
can understand if people object to the inconsistency; so
org.apache.harmony.tests.java.io.FileTest.java <- test API
org.apache.harmony.io.tests.FileImpltest.java <- test public methods
in our IO impl'
I'll wait until you respond to above.
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.
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 thought we'd agreed that 'regression' was not a useful classification
within the test suite layout ...
I don't remember - because I still believe that our regression tests are
going to be of broad scope, so having bucketing into kinds of tests will
make it easier for day to day development (i.e. devs can focus on
iterating w/ unit tests that require minimal infrastructure, while CI
infrastructure can do the broader, slower or more complicated testing...)
Either way, I suspect we'll be figuring it out as we go along.
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.
ok -- do you have a usecase in mind?
For the tag? Sure - if you wanted to run through the code to see which
JIRAs had corresponding tests, for example...
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
