Tim Ellison wrote:
Just to clarify terminology -- unit tests are a 'style' of test that
focus on particular units of functionality. Unit tests can be both
implementation tests and API tests. Implementation tests are specific
to our implementation (the mechanism, hidden to the end user, by which
we chose to implement the APIs); and API tests are common to all
conformant implementations (they test the APIs used by the end user).
So can we refer to "implementation tests" as "unit tests", because I
would bet that's a well-understood useage, and refer to things that are
strictly testing the API as "API tests".
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).
We have implementation tests that require package private, and maybe
even private access to our implementation classes both in the java.* and
o.a.h.* packages.
The 'problem' is that we cannot define classes in java.* packages that
are loaded by the application classloader. That is counter to
specification and prohibited by the VM.
We also have API tests that should not have access to package private
and even private types in the implementation.
The 'problem' is that running API tests in java.* packages does provide
such access, and worse runs those tests on the bootclassloader which
gives them special security access not afforded to our users. I've said
this lots of times before. We already see lots of errors caused by
oversight of the classloader differences.
Right. And I think the solution is to think about this in some other
way than just running things in a VM, like a test harness that does the
right thing in terms of the classes being tested (what would be in the
boot classloader) and the classes doing the testing.
With the "custom" of putting in things in o.a.h.t are we
implicitly discouraging good testing practice?
This is laughable.
You are going to have to explain why it's "laughable". If you are
testing a.b.c.Foo and you have to do it from a.b.c.test.FooTest, how can
you ever do implementation testing of Foo? It's not an unreasonable
question. Certainly not "laughable".
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.
The only thing shared with Eclipse-land here is the *.tests.* package
name element, hardly significant or unique I expect.
Well, it is around here. While I haven't done a survey, I'm used to
projects keeping things in parallel trees to make it easy to test.
Granted, projects don't have the problem we have.
The thing I'm asking for is this - how in Eclipse-land do they test
package protected stuff? How do they do implementation tests?
Eclipse testing does not have the java.* namespace issues with
classloaders that we have got.
Right, but that's a classloader and security manager issue for the
testing framework, isn't it?
Hypothetically....suppose we decided (for whatever reason) that we
weren't going to test in situ to get better control of the environment.
What would you do?
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...
Today we run all our tests in one suite on the classpath. They are API
tests.
I hope they are more than API tests.
I expect that we will at least have another test suite of implementation
tests.
However, over the last few weeks we have been discussing the other
'dimensions' of testing that we want to embody, and we haven't settled
on a suitable way of representing those different dimensions. Filenames
for testcases may do it if we can squeeze in enough information into a
filename (I don't like that approach, BTW)
I don't either.
, or explicitly defining
different suites of tests.
Which makes sense.
Regards,
Tim
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.
