Patrick, I agree with your concern. Early on, I was at fault a couple of times with integrating changes without a corresponding unit testcase. But, with "gentle" reminders by the OpenJPA community, I've started to remember. So, as a start, I would challenge everyone to start monitoring the commits and request appropriate unit tests if none were provided. Either by replying to openjpa-dev or directly to the JIRA issue. Maybe with enough "public reminders", we'll start to get the point across.
I do know that in some cases, creating a unit test for a specific bug is easier said than done. Since we are pulling OpenJPA into a larger product (WebSphere in my case), some of the test scenarios that uncover a bug are quite complicated and involved. Creating an individual unit testcase to reproduce the problem is more effort and when time is critical, we sometimes go for the quick fix, ensure we don't regress, and integrate the change. I'm not trying to justify the lack of unit tests for these situations, I'm just explaining some background on why it happens once in a while. As far as new "features" being integrated into OpenJPA, there should be no excuse for lack of unit tests. We need to provide repeatable testcases for these new features. If users are providing patches for these new features, then it's easy to stop the commit until testcases are provided. If new features are committed without corresponding testcases, should we back out the changes? I know that's kind of extreme, but it would make a point. Of course, then we get into the feature vs bug fix discussion, but if everyone works at providing unit tests, then it's a moot point. Kevin On 4/9/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It should be part of the commit acceptance process. I agree that it should be part of the process, but I hope that with sufficient discipline and attention, we can avoid having to enforce this via automated rules. I definitely make changes that don't merit unit tests, such as changes to localized strings, null checks, build file changes, etc. -Patrick -- Patrick Linskey BEA Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Phill Moran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:02 AM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Unit testing > > +1 > It should be part of the commit acceptance process. Otherwise > OpenJPA will loose > out to other ORM tools that will be perceived as less buggy. > What is used for coverage monitoring, clover? We should also > use checkstyle to > give some insight into the code as well > > Phill > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 9, 2007 12:51 PM > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Unit testing > > Hi, > > I'm a bit concerned about the lack of unit tests being put > into OpenJPA as new > features are added. I understand that often, creating unit tests are > anticlimactic compared to implementing the feature itself, > but at least basic > happy-path testing of new features is pretty essential if we > want to avoid these > types of problems. Code inspection is good but, Abe's good > eyes aside, not as > reliable as having a unit test that will start failing when a > feature is broken. > > I try to write my test cases first, in a somewhat-modified > TDD approach. > I do this because a) I need some sort of harness to > demonstrate the failure in > order to isolate and resolve it, and b) I know that > personally, I'm much more > likely to write a test while the problem is still interesting > than after it's > resolved. In other words, I never (well, rarely) have a > command-line harness > that I throw together to demonstrate a problem. I try to > always use a test case > instead. This strategy means that the only test-related > overhead is the effort > involved to figure out how to programmatically test for failure. > > Also, I understand that some things are hard to test. Testing > SQL or JDBC > interactions is often percieved to be one of these things. In > the Kodo codebase, > we ended up creating various means to get around this; the > SQLListenerTestCase > is one such example. It turns out that by extending > SQLListenerTestCase, it > becomes trivial to check how much SQL was written and what > the SQL looks like. > > Does anyone else have any thoughts about how to ensure that > we develop test > cases as needed? > > -Patrick > > -- > Patrick Linskey > BEA Systems, Inc. > > ______________________________________________________________ > _________ > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, > may contain > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > affiliated > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > copyrighted and/or legally > privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity named > in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and > have received this > message in error, please immediately return this by email and > then delete it. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Abe White > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:12 AM > > To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (OPENJPA-208) NoResultException and > > NonUniqueResultException are not thrown when expected > > > > > Went ahead and restored the previous behavior where the QueryImpl > > > itself checks for non-uniqueness and throws the expected > exception. > > > > That breaks the single result optimization that was added for > > OPENJPA-168 when getSingleResult() is called. There was a > reason we > > moved the validation to the kernel. The previous code was > correct. > > You need to use the "hard" way of creating new exception types. > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may > > contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its > subsidiaries and > > affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > > copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended > solely for the > > use of the individual or entity named in this message. If > you are not > > the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, > > please immediately return this by email and then delete it. > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, > may contain > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and > affiliated > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, > copyrighted and/or legally > privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity named > in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and > have received this > message in error, please immediately return this by email and > then delete it. > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
