Hi,
If annotations were to be used to help us categorise tests in order to
simplify the definition of test configurations - what's included and
excluded etc - then a core set of annotations would need to be agreed by
the project. Consider the possibilities that the TestNG "@Test"
annotation offers us in this respect.
First, if a test method was identified as being broken and needed to be
excluded from all test runs while awaiting investigation then it would
be a simple matter of setting its enabled field like this:
@Test(enabled=false)
public void myTest() {
...
}
Temporarily disabling a test method in this way means that it can be
left in its original class and we do not have to refer to it in any
suite configuration (e.g. in the suite xml file).
If a test method was identified as being broken on a specific platform
then we could make use of the groups field of the "@Test" type by making
the method a member of a group that identifies its predicament.
Something like this:
@Test(groups={"state.broken.win.IA32"})
public void myOtherTest() {
...
}
The configuration for running tests on Windows would then specifically
exclude any test method (or class) that was a member of that group.
Making a test method or type a member of a well-known group (well-known
in the sense that the name and meaning has been agreed within the
project) is essentially adding some descriptive attributes to the test.
Like adjectives (the groups) and nouns (the tests) in the English
language. To take another example, if there was a test class that
contained methods only intended to be run on Windows and that were all
specific to Harmony (i.e. not API tests) then one could envisage the
following kind of annotation:
@Test(groups={"type.impl", "os.win.IA32"})
public class MyTestClass {
public void testOne() {
...
}
public void testTwo() {
...
}
@Test(enabled=false)
public void brokenTest() {
...
}
}
Here the annotation on MyTestClass applies to all of its test methods.
So what are the well-known TestNG groups that we could define for use
inside Harmony ? Here are some of my initial thoughts:
* type.impl -- tests that are specific to Harmony
* state.broken.<platform id> -- tests bust on a specific platform
* state.broken -- tests broken on every platform but we want to decide
whether or not to run from our suite configuration
* os.<platform id> -- tests that are to be run only on the specified
platform (a test could be member of more than one of these)
What does everyone else think ? Does such a scheme sound reasonable ?
Thanks for reading this far.
Best regards,
George
George Harley wrote:
Hi,
Just seen Tim's note on test support classes and it really caught my
attention as I have been mulling over this issue for a little while
now. I think that it is a good time for us to return to the topic of
class library test layouts.
The current proposal [1] sets out to segment our different types of
test by placing them in different file locations. After looking at the
recent changes to the LUNI module tests (where the layout guidelines
were applied) I have a real concern that there are serious problems
with this approach. We have started down a track of just continually
growing the number of test source folders as new categories of test
are identified and IMHO that is going to bring complexity and
maintenance issues with these tests.
Consider the dimensions of tests that we have ...
API
Harmony-specific
Platform-specific
Run on classpath
Run on bootclasspath
Behaves different between Harmony and RI
Stress
...and so on...
If you weigh up all of the different possible permutations and then
consider that the above list is highly likely to be extended as things
progress it is obvious that we are eventually heading for large
amounts of related test code scattered or possibly duplicated across
numerous "hard wired" source directories. How maintainable is that
going to be ?
If we want to run different tests in different configurations then
IMHO we need to be thinking a whole lot smarter. We need to be
thinking about keeping tests for specific areas of functionality
together (thus easing maintenance); we need something quick and simple
to re-configure if necessary (pushing whole directories of files
around the place does not seem a particularly lightweight approach);
and something that is not going to potentially mess up contributed
patches when the file they patch is found to have been recently pushed
from source folder A to B.
To connect into another recent thread, there have been some posts
lately about handling some test methods that fail on Harmony and have
meant that entire test case classes have been excluded from our test
runs. I have also been noticing some API test methods that pass fine
on Harmony but fail when run against the RI. Are the different
behaviours down to errors in the Harmony implementation ? An error in
the RI implementation ? A bug in the RI Javadoc ? Only after some
investigation has been carried out do we know for sure. That takes
time. What do we do with the test methods in the meantime ? Do we push
them round the file system into yet another new source folder ? IMHO
we need a testing strategy that enables such "problem" methods to be
tracked easily without disruption to the rest of the other tests.
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. Using a combination of annotations
and XML to capture the kinds of sophisticated test configurations that
people need, and that allows us to specify down to the individual
method, has got to be more scalable and flexible than where we are
headed now.
Thanks for reading this far.
Best regards,
George
[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/subcomponents/classlibrary/testing.html
[2] http://testng.org
[3]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
