I don't think I got my point across here. I'm all in favor of having unit
tests. I just think that the unit tests should bang on real servers, not
mock objects.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [httpclient] unit test suite
> 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
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
