Ok this seems a discussion related to JUnit 4, so I'll port what I've said
about it from the other thread (doing the code cleanup):
{quote}
Erik, I'm totally with you on JUnit 4. I think the @Test annotation is
really not a big deal (it's actually very easy to migrate all the current
tests to JUnit 4 with the added import using some script. Even manually it
shouldn't be such a big deal.
@Ignore is a perfect other advantage of JUnit4. I've found some tests which
were prefixed with _, i.e. _testXYZ just to disable them. Nobody knows about
them until he looks at the code (and pays attention). @Ignore would have
been better.
And there are lots of other advantages, like the @Before and @After (not
only class). Another problem I've found in the tests is that not all
extended LuceneTestCase, and usually their setUp and tearDown
implementations were wrong - not calling super first/last. When I moved them
to extend LuceneTestCase they broke (I fixed them, don't worry). However,
that could never happen if the super's methods were tagged w/ @Before/After,
because JUnit would take care running them before/after their sub-classes'
@Before/After. So that's another win for JUnit4.
And of course the @Before/AfterClass are really great !
{quote}
I think the @Before/After annotations can be a real win for our tests.
My two cents,
Shai
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Well, "Things got busy (tm)". Uwe's point if valid; unless there's
> demonstrable gain, moving things to Junit4 "just for fun" is wasted motion,
> indeed dangerous. I was focusing on LocalizedTestCase to understand the
> place of runBare etc. in the scheme of things since when I created
> LuceneTestCaseJ4 that was something I wanted to figure out to make it a
> replacement for LuceneTestCase.
>
> I can't point to a compelling reason to shake up the code, the only
> improvement it would have is having a demonstration of using the Junit4
> @RunWith annotation for future reference.
>
> So, I've no compelling reason to push that patch forward. If y'all think
> it's worth it I'll be happy to crank that patch back up again, it'll take a
> few days though. It does affect a several files, and if the main value here
> is an exemplar of the @RunWith annotation, perhaps there's a better place to
> put that in.
>
> Erick
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> LocalizedTestCase called runBare in LuceneTestCase which reported the
>>> seed value if an exception was thrown. I couldn't find a good way to access
>>> runBare or analogs in Junit4, but the interceptor pattern worked as well.
>>> The interceptor is called by the Junit framework on test events, so there
>>> aren't references to it in the Lucene test code. There are other places that
>>> call runBare, so I assumed that if anyone wanted to use Junit4 with those
>>> classes it would be a good thing to allow.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't forget about your patch Erick, in my opinion there is nothing
>> wrong with it. I hope its not discouraging you, the problem is a few of us
>> have spent countless hours trying to debug this hard-to-reproduce Thai test
>> failure problem.
>>
>> It failed in the existing tests, too, with Junit 3 on hudson (one time!).
>> At this point, i start to wonder if it could be related to stuff like this:
>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6683975
>>
>> I don't think we should let this stop progress with the tests, if you
>> think we should move LocalizedTestCase to junit 4 lets do it.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Muir
>> rcm...@gmail.com
>>
>
>
