On 06/07/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
George Harley wrote: > A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the TestNG framework [2] seemed > like a reasonably good way of allowing us to both group together > different kinds of tests and permit the exclusion of individual > tests/groups of tests [3]. I would like to strongly propose that we > consider using TestNG as a means of providing the different test > configurations required by Harmony. Will try to study TestNG before I can give comment ;-)
I'd strongly recommend TestNG for this purpose, too. It's possible to have a limiteless set of annotations for TestNG as well as allowing different (sub)sets of those tests to be run. You can also set up dependencies between stages (e.g. to test sockets, you've got to test the IO ones first) as well as allowing re-running of just failed tests from the command line (a test run can output markers as to which tests passed/failed, and then on subsequent runs just re-run the failing tests). It would also solve a lot of the problems that we've been seeing for OS-specific issues; you can mark a test only to be run on Windows, or on Linux etc. the best thing is that all of these annotations can be combined in whatever ways that you want -- as opposed to a directory-based approach, which is hierarchical and thus not easy to split based on OS or enviornment alone without an exponetial explosion in the possible combinations. Alex. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
