Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Good unit tests are going to be testing things that are package
protected. You can't do that if you aren't in the same package
(obviously). With the "custom" of putting in things in o.a.h.t are we
implicitly discouraging good testing practice? Given that this
o.a.h.t.* pattern comes from Eclipse-land, how do they do it? I
couldn't imagine that the Eclipse tests don't test package protected
things.
Hello Geir,
Maybe we should have two types of test suites:
1. Test for APIs including public and protected methods which could be
run against different Java SE implementations.
==>> If we want to test a protected method of a class, we could mock a
subclass of this class. And write test case against the subclass.
(Protected methods are accessible to subclass)
2. Test for internal implementation which may include tests for package
private methods and tests for other internal-used classes.
==>>We must put the tests into the same package if we want to test
package private methods of a class.
These are just some rough thinking ;-) Any comments? Thanks a lot.
I've been short of Round Tuits lately, but I still would like to
investigate a test harness that helps us by mitigating the security
issues...
geir
Mark Hindess wrote:
I thought the crucial thing was that tests should be in a separate
namespace not in the namespace of the package they are testing (at
least not unless it was absolutely necessary).
-Mark.
On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm doing it now.
I need to go back and stare at our discussion on test setup, because
I'm
still not a raving fan of o.a.h.test....
geir
Mark Hindess wrote:
Don't worry, you'd have to be less subtle for me to take something
as criticism.
I've had an attempt at moving beans out - HARMONY-218. If that gets
committed I'll do the other too.
-Mark.
On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That wasn't a criticism, btw. It seemed like a natural thing to
do when
I first saw it, but when I was actually dealing w/ it, my opinion
changed.
Yah, split away! That was going to be my next question, how to
split..
geir
Mark Hindess wrote:
Fair enough.
Mind if I redo the script/patch to split the three modules to match
the structure of the others? That is, into separate modules/math,
modules/beans, modules/regex directories?
Regards,
Mark.
On 3/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just committed. There was some delay because of a missing
CCLA. Sorry.
I've committed the code as is from the JIRA. I'm going to do
some basic
cleanup and then look at hte patches to integrate.
Looking at this (and 88?) I think that this "add patches"
approach is a
bad one, because it complicates what this JIRA is now.
In the future, I think we should just create new JIRA's for
add-ons (if
the add-on contributor isn't the contributor of the original
JIRA) and
just link them so they are easy to keep track of...
Richard Liang wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Despite a touch of trouble with the packaging of the
contribution, it
passed with flying colors ( or 'colours', for our UK friends...)
+1 from :
Geir
Stefano
Dims
Tim
Leo
In it comes....
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
I have received the ACQs and the BCC for Harmony-39, so I can
assert
that the critical provenance paperwork is in order (although
not in
SVN yet).
Please vote to accept or reject this codebase into the Apache
Harmony
class library :
[ ] + 1 Accept
[ ] -1 Reject (provide reason below
Lets let this run 3 days unless a) someone states they need
more time
or b) we get all committer votes before then.
Go...
geir
Hello Geir,
As this contribution has been accepted for a long time, I'm
wondering
when the source code could be put into Harmony SVN.
I'm working on the implementation of java.text.DecimalFormat
which has
enhancements on BigDecimal and BigInteger support. Now I just
use this
contribution as external jars in Eclipse.
--
Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
--
Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
--
Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Java Technology Centre, UK.
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
