On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 09:55 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > Robert Godfrey wrote: > > I just think that the test pack for testing brokers isn't related to > > the "python-ness" of the python tests... In fact they are designed for > > testing *any* AMQP implementation. This is fundamentally different to > > the concept of unit testing the Qpid Python Library... > > Agreed > > > Looking at it the other way, for your unit tests, you shouldn't be > > needing to run a broker :-) > > The tests only connect to the broker on demand, so you don't have to run > the broker if you just run unit tests, but I agree that these are pretty > distinct kinds of tests. > > What exactly are you suggesting, completely separate packaging for the > broker tests, a separate directory, ...? > > I still think it's reasonable for an AMQP broker test suite to do some > amount of self testing before announcing that the broker is in error. > I'm inclined to agree. It makes it easier to distinguish "python tests failing because broker is broken" from "python tests failing because python client is broken" and could save much wasted time looking for non-existent broker bugs.
Unless they take a long time to run (doubtful!) I see no reason not to run them along with the broker tests - the fact that they're failing now is just a temporary quirk, they should be subject to the same "never fail" rules as all tests. I do agree that you need to be able to clearly distinguish which type of test is failing, that could be done with just naming conventions for test classes. Cheers, Alan.
