Hi guys,
Sorry for my recent silence.
These jtreg doo-hickeys sound like the QA tests to me. They're something
we're inherited and not really sure what to do with them, so I suggest we
treat them like the QA tests.
Assuming it's not too difficult, lets get running the jtregs as part of
the build. As River functionality is added/changed and individual jtregs
start breaking whoever made the change should assume that it's their
responsibility to modify or remove the jtreg (and QA test) as appropriate.
Meanwhile, new code gets junit tested.
Thoughts?
Also, +1 Java 5. (Java 6 I can take or leave).
Cheers,
Tom
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:50:10 -0000, Peter Firmstone <[email protected]>
wrote:
I hear you.
How about we step back, postpone making a decision until we better
understand just what we've inherited then weigh up the pro's and con's?
I haven't seen anyone in a hurry to write junit tests yet, a little wait
while we investigate jtreg can't do any harm? ;) It took me about 1 hour
to download, install and get jtreg running, having never heard of it
before, the tests themselves seem simple, remember I'm one of your new
developers.
I'm going to sit on the fence for now have a play and write test cases
for ClassDep using both tools for my own understanding.
We're going to have to get to know jtreg to make an informed decision,
here's some info:
All tests are placed in the directory tree under qa/jtreg/
Ant can be used to run all tests, I'll post the build.xml file after I
write it.
The following I've copied from the jtreg website:
Ant Examples:
<jtreg dir="test/tools/javac"/>
Run all the tests in the test/tools/javac directory, using the same JDK
being used to run Ant, the default work and report directories, and
running each test in a separate VM.
<jtreg dir="test/tools/javac" workDir="myWorkDir"/>
As before, but specifying a work directory for the results.
<jtreg dir="test/tools/javac" workDir="myWorkDir">
<include name="api/*.java" />
</jtreg>
Run just the api/*.java tests.
<jtreg>
<arg line="-w myWorkDir -jdk /java/jdk/1.5.0 test/tools/javac">
</jtreg>
Run the test/tools/javac tests using /java/jdk/1.5.0 writing the results
to myWorkDir.
2. Writing a JDK Regression Test
2.1. How do I write a test?
The simplest test is an ordinary Java program with the usual static main
method. If the test fails, it should throw an exception; if it succeeds,
it should return normally.
Here's an example:
/* @test 1.1 97/10/12
@bug 1234567
@summary Make sure that 1 != 0
*/
public class OneZero {
public static void main(String[] args)
throws Exception {
if (1 == 0) {
throw new Exception("1 == 0");
}
}
}
The @test tag identifies a source file that defines a test. the harness
will automatically run any .java, .sh, and .html file containing an
@test tag within the appropriate comment; it ignores any file not
containing such a tag or not utilizing one of the expected extensions.
If necessary the harness will compile the source file, if the class
files are older than the corresponding source files. Other files which
the test depends on must be specified with the @run build action.
The arguments to the @test tag are ignored by the harness. For
identification it's useful to put the usual SCCS ID keywords (I and E,
each letter surrounded by %) after the @test tag.
While not part of the tag specification, some tests use the string
"/nodynamiccopyright" after @test to indicate that that the file should
not be subject to automated copyright processing that might affect the
operation of the test, for example, by affecting the line numbers of the
test source code.
2.3. What do the other tags mean?
The other tags shown above are optional.
The @bug tag should be followed by one or more bug numbers, separated by
spaces. The bug number is useful in diagnosing test failures. It's OK to
write tests that don't have bug numbers, but if you're writing a test
for a specific bug please include its number in an @bug tag.
The @summary tag describes the condition that is checked by the test. It
is especially useful for non-regression tests, which by definition don't
have bug numbers, but even if there's a bug number it's helpful to
include a summary. Note that a test summary is generally not the same
thing as a Bugtraq synopsis, since the latter describes the bug rather
than the condition that the bug violates.
Jeff Ramsdale wrote:
Not to mention tool support--IDEs, etc...
-j
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Jukka Zitting
<[email protected]>wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Peter Firmstone <[email protected]>
wrote:
It appears to me that I should perhaps be writing jtreg style unit
tests
for
ClassDep rather than JUnit?
I'm not so sure about that. I can't tell which approach is better
technically as I don't know jtreg, but from a community building
perspective it would be much better if we used something that the vast
majority of the Java world is already familiar with.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
