Zsolt Kúti wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:40:19 +0100
Jonathan Costers <jonathan.cost...@googlemail.com> wrote:
...
Not all of them use/need a multi VM setup. Those are candidates for
JUnit. The others would be QA candidates.
I'm not saying it is easy to migrate any of these though, doing so
requires knowledge of how the jtreg framework operates, as well as
the proposed target framework (JUnit, QA).
JUnit's good when we're only testing a single object
implementation, we can document and expect people to utilse the qa
suite for more complex tests.
Agreed.
Hello hard workers,
It would be worth considering the use of TestNG instead of JUnit.
I have no experience in their comparison, so relied on other
sources when I was to decid what framework to use (like this:
http://www.mkyong.com/unittest/junit-4-vs-testng-comparison/).
TestNG features that are missing from JUnit can be useful in a complex
test environment like that of River.
If we were starting cold, with no existing tests, I might be open to
this suggestion. As it is, we already have a QA framework that can do
all the complex, multi-JVM tests, and we have over 1000 existing tests
using it.
I think the objective in converting jtreg tests would be to reduce the
number of frameworks, and the amount of software we need installed, in
order to run a full test. Switching them to TestNG, or anything else
other than JUnit or the River QA framework, would not achieve that.
Patricia
