Yes Carl,I agree...what do you think about that? http://clarkware.com/software/JUnitPerf.html
I used it in my previous project and that was great! Regards, Andrea 2008/10/30 Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Andrea Gazzarini wrote: > >> Hi all, >> Actual bundle of QMan has only "offline" unit test that are running tests >> again isolated "components" of QMan. That means that in order to see those >> tests running you don't need to have QMan and / or Qpid running. This is >> good for development stage, allowing a (moreless) test-driven development >> and therefore a flexible code but in order to see that all is working >> (Test >> --> QMan --> Qpid) we need to add tests against a runnning QMan connected >> to >> a broker. I'm thinking about that...I already coded some tests but it's an >> hard work because the asynchronous nature of the interaction between QMan >> & >> Qpid. Probably QMan will be extended to support JMX notifications. I'm >> thinkng about that so I'm not sure but from a test perspective should be >> cool if you could register a test as a listener of QMan notifications and >> in >> that way you will be informed about object creations, events, method >> invocations and all what you need to run your verifications. If you some >> kind of idea feel free to suggest... Regards, Andrea >> >> >> > > yes, the question is how to prove all the function interop in a clean and > automated way. > > I expect you will need a time based test, you know an update will be > reported back with-in > the interval configured on the broker. You can set that to 1 sec in the > script, and have the > test wait say 5sec max before reporting it as failed. > > Carl. >
