On 4/17/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why we should test something other than Harmony?
>
> We might run our tests on different implemetations to
> see whether/how they differ from Harmony, but we do not need
> special branches in our tests like
>
> if( isHarmony() ) {
> assert(harmony behavior)
> } else if( is BEA ) {
> assert(BEA behav) {
> } else if( Classpath ) {
Hi Mikhail.
No, we don't need all those branches. Only the branch for Harmony.
Only for those cases when we DO know that we have a deviation.
IMHO, I prefer to have all tests passing on RI (which verify tests
itself) and on Harmony (which verifies Harmony). Failures should
indicate something wrong with tests or with Harmony code. There should
be no other failures, I think.
That is a bit similar to 'exclude list' we introduced: we don't want
to have failures when they are expected and predictable.
--
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
