Hi Morgan,
There are 2 kinds of tests :
* unit tests
* functional tests
I was referring to the unit tests which are supposed to fully test the code
logic. It is also easily automatable and need to be run every time you
modify something to ensure you don't break anything. It is quite
fine-grained tests compare to functional tests.
Functional tests are harder to automate but can be done (see Cactus).
However, we'll have to say which test can be run on which server because as
I saw in the comment of some test Tomcat 3.x does not support OPTIONS
request for example so these tests should not be executed on Tomcat 3.x, ...
Also we need to control the page that is hit by the test so we'll probably
need to provide some test pages to deploy to the test server.
I don't see what would be the problem of providing unit tests ! The more
tests the better (provided they are executed all the time and corrected when
modifications or new APIs are introduced). I am also a partisan of test
first .... but I won't ask you to do that ... (although you should try one
day, I'm sure you'll like it) :-)
Thanks
-Vincent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [httpclient] unit test suite
Vincent Massol wrote on 8/25/01 12:02 pm:
>I think that if we wish to
>provide a strong and reliable
>http client framework we
>ought to have a good suite of
>unit test that we will enrich
>as we go along and find bugs.
>I have had a brief look at the
>current tests and we really
>need to refine them.
Agreed, we could definitley use more tests.
>They also rely on the
>installation of a web server
>on your machine which I don't
>like too much as the test will
>pass and fail depending on
>which one you use ...
Isn't that an advantage? After all, wouldn't you want to try running your
tests on the actual server you will be communicating with?
>Instead I propose to simply
>use Mock Objects to provide
>a reliable suite of tests,
>which is independent of the
>web server installed. The
>principle is simple: we simply
>need to create a mock
>Socket class and a way to
>pass this mock to the
>HttpClient class. The idea is
>that it is possible from our
>test case to set the
>behaviour that we expect
>from the mock Socket class,
>like what data it will return
>on the output stream, ...
>there is absolutely no logic in
>the mock implementation,
>just setters and getters.
I think we want to be testing real servers, so we can uncover a wider
variety of problems.
>I'll write one ASAP but I'd like
>to know if I can be voted in ....
>I am yearning to go forward
>especially as Cactus now
>relies on HttpClient.
You don't need our approval to be a committer, but I don't know if this
particular task is a good idea.
- Morgan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
