Even with a webapp you'll not be able to implement the test I have described
! :)
-Vincent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Morgan Delagrange"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [httpclient] unit test suite
> I think Rod's solution to this problem was to provide a test webapp, which
> can provide feedback in much the same way as Watchdog.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [httpclient] unit test suite
>
>
> > I understand very well your point but I don't think you understood mine
> ...
> > :-)
> >
> > What I am saying is that unit tests are fine-grained and can exercise
all
> > needed tests. For example I don't see any unit test to verify that when
> the
> > server returns 2 cookies in 2 different HTTP headers it works fine !
....
> > Why ? Because if you test this by hitting real servers it is going to be
> > *very* hard to simulate. In principle you'll want to exercise the full
> > client HTTP RFC and this is going to be impossible by hitting real
> servers.
> > It is however very easy to do with Mock Objects.
> >
> > I alsol agree that we also need some coarse grain functional tests which
> hit
> > real servers but it comes as a complement to the unit tests.
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 5:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [httpclient] unit test suite
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
