Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
so...(maybe just ?)
I do though have some trimming suggestions:
CREATE INDEX ...
...
and
(don't see much
need for a separate tag for the class)
btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
allow grouping
of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that with
single drop/create's ?
/max
So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
There are two basic usages:
#1:
#2:
If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
peace...
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Actually, probably even better:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String sqlCreateString();
public String sqlDropString();
}
;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
(keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
need to expose the create/drop strings.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
to stored procedure support.
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that
frequency.
Anyway, thoughts?
Steve
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:14:12 +0200, Steve Ebersole
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
huh? we have no element...
i'm on crack.
column/
/max
I'll check it in like this. If you feel that strongly about it, feel
free to change it.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:20 PM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
the trimming were not about the CDATA, but about the .
Did not think about the mutally-exclusive choice thing - but we don't
do that normally, e.g. table and .
/max
And the reason I did "definition" as a separate nested element was so
that I could enforce this as a mutually-exclusive choice in the DTD.
In
DTD I can say "this nested element OR those other two nested
elements".
Plus, you realize that there is no trimming involved at all in your
first example compared to my first example, right? I simply chose
CDATA
tags to enclose my text, where you did not...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:58 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
so...(maybe just ?)
I do though have some trimming suggestions:
CREATE INDEX ...
...
and
(don't see
much
need for a separate tag for the class)
btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
allow grouping
of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that
with
single drop/create's ?
/max
So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
There are two basic usages:
#1:
#2:
If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
peace...
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Actually, probably even better:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String sqlCreateString();
public String sqlDropString();
}
;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
(keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something
like:
Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
need to expose the create/drop strings.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
to stored procedure support.
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would
be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject
might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
get
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:52:32 +0200, Steve Ebersole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What is the point of this for "tooling" if you cannot get the name of these things, and even if you could you could not do anything to them by name? So maybe there is some requirement you need from this in terms of "tooling" that you are not mentioning. But as it stands I still see no need for this. When I want to visualize or create a mapping. Then it is very annoying to e.g. only see the following in a tree or list. class name="Author" database-object database-object database-object database-object /max -Original Message- From: Max Andersen Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:32 PM To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question mainly for tooling. /max Why a name, though? I was not planning on allowing lookup of these things as I don't see a benefit of allowing it. Do you see a benefit to it? Hard to explain a configuration necessity that has no purpose... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Bauer Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:55 PM To: Hibernate devel Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your peace... I think it should have a name="" attribute so we keep a consistent "catalog" in the Configuration. --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
huh? we have no element...
I'll check it in like this. If you feel that strongly about it, feel
free to change it.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:20 PM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
the trimming were not about the CDATA, but about the .
Did not think about the mutally-exclusive choice thing - but we don't
do that normally, e.g. table and .
/max
> And the reason I did "definition" as a separate nested element was so
> that I could enforce this as a mutually-exclusive choice in the DTD.
In
> DTD I can say "this nested element OR those other two nested
elements".
>
> Plus, you realize that there is no trimming involved at all in your
> first example compared to my first example, right? I simply chose
CDATA
> tags to enclose my text, where you did not...
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:58 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
>
> i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
> so...(maybe just ?)
>
> I do though have some trimming suggestions:
>
>
> CREATE INDEX ...
> ...
>
>
>
> and
>
> (don't see
much
>
> need for a separate tag for the class)
>
> btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
> allow grouping
> of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that
with
>
> single drop/create's ?
>
> /max
>
>> So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
>> org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
>> through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
>> There are two basic usages:
>>
>> #1:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> #2:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
>> peace...
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Steve
>> Ebersole
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
>> To: Hibernate devel
>> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>>
>> Actually, probably even better:
>>
>> public interface DatabaseObject {
>> public String sqlCreateString();
>> public String sqlDropString();
>> }
>>
>> ;)
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Steve
>> Ebersole
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
>> To: Hibernate devel
>> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>>
>> Yes, but I was more thinking:
>>
>> public interface DatabaseObject {
>> public String getCreateCommand();
>> public String getDropCommand();
>> }
>>
>> because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
>> database object...
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Max Andersen
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
>> To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
>> Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>>
>>
>> And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
>> String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
>>
>> Sounds good.
>> I was more thinking like:
>>
>>
>>
>>CREATE ...
>>
>>
>>CREATE ...
>>
>>
>>DROP ..
>>
>>
>>
>> but I guess both are usable.
>>
>> /max
>>> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
>> mentioned
>>> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something
like:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
>>> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Max Andersen
>>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
>>> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
>>> Subject: Re: testing question
>>&
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
What is the point of this for "tooling" if you cannot get the name of these things, and even if you could you could not do anything to them by name? So maybe there is some requirement you need from this in terms of "tooling" that you are not mentioning. But as it stands I still see no need for this. -Original Message- From: Max Andersen Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:32 PM To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question mainly for tooling. /max > Why a name, though? I was not planning on allowing lookup of these > things as I don't see a benefit of allowing it. Do you see a benefit to > it? Hard to explain a configuration necessity that has no purpose... > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christian Bauer > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:55 PM > To: Hibernate devel > Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question > > > On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > >> If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your >> peace... > > I think it should have a name="" attribute so we keep a consistent > "catalog" in the Configuration. > > > > --- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & > QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * > http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > ___ > hibernate-devel mailing list > hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel > > > --- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO > September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle > Practices > Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & > QA > Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf > ___ > hibernate-devel mailing list > hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: Why a name, though? I was not planning on allowing lookup of these things as I don't see a benefit of allowing it. Do you see a benefit to it? Hard to explain a configuration necessity that has no purpose... Not at the moment but I'm somewhat certain that a good example will present itself at some point :) --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
The binder code simply iterates the Elements, presumably in the order
they appear (I think that's how Dom4J works here). But at any rate it's
the same question with multiple create/drop nested elements. If Dom4J
does not for some reason return the Element iterator in the expected
order, it'll be the same issue...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:58 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
so...(maybe just ?)
I do though have some trimming suggestions:
CREATE INDEX ...
...
and
(don't see much
need for a separate tag for the class)
btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
allow grouping
of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that with
single drop/create's ?
/max
> So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
> org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
> through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
> There are two basic usages:
>
> #1:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #2:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
> peace...
>
> Steve
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Actually, probably even better:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String sqlCreateString();
> public String sqlDropString();
> }
>
> ;)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Yes, but I was more thinking:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String getCreateCommand();
> public String getDropCommand();
> }
>
> because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
> database object...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
>
> And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
> String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
>
> Sounds good.
> I was more thinking like:
>
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>DROP ..
>
>
>
> but I guess both are usable.
>
> /max
>> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
> mentioned
>> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
>> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Max Andersen
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
>> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
>> Subject: Re: testing question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
>> relating
>>> to stored procedure support.
>>>
>>
>> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
>> while
>> running
>> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>>
>> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
>> provided additional DDL's ?
>> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
> for
>>
>> it...maybe our own
>> testing is ?)
>>
>> /max
>>
>>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
>> I'll
>>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
> better
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
>> register
>>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would
be
>>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>>> look like:
>>>
>>> interface Data
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
mainly for tooling. /max Why a name, though? I was not planning on allowing lookup of these things as I don't see a benefit of allowing it. Do you see a benefit to it? Hard to explain a configuration necessity that has no purpose... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Bauer Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:55 PM To: Hibernate devel Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your peace... I think it should have a name="" attribute so we keep a consistent "catalog" in the Configuration. --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Let's move this discussion over to:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-840
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:58 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
so...(maybe just ?)
I do though have some trimming suggestions:
CREATE INDEX ...
...
and
(don't see much
need for a separate tag for the class)
btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
allow grouping
of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that with
single drop/create's ?
/max
> So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
> org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
> through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
> There are two basic usages:
>
> #1:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #2:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
> peace...
>
> Steve
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Actually, probably even better:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String sqlCreateString();
> public String sqlDropString();
> }
>
> ;)
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Yes, but I was more thinking:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String getCreateCommand();
> public String getDropCommand();
> }
>
> because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
> database object...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
>
> And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
> String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
>
> Sounds good.
> I was more thinking like:
>
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>DROP ..
>
>
>
> but I guess both are usable.
>
> /max
>> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
> mentioned
>> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
>> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Max Andersen
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
>> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
>> Subject: Re: testing question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
>> relating
>>> to stored procedure support.
>>>
>>
>> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
>> while
>> running
>> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>>
>> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
>> provided additional DDL's ?
>> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
> for
>>
>> it...maybe our own
>> testing is ?)
>>
>> /max
>>
>>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
>> I'll
>>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
> better
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
>> register
>>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would
be
>>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>>> look like:
>>>
>>> interface DatabaseObject {
>>> void doCreate(Connection conn);
>>> void doDrop(Connection conn);
>>> }
>>>
>>> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
> non-table
>
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Why a name, though? I was not planning on allowing lookup of these things as I don't see a benefit of allowing it. Do you see a benefit to it? Hard to explain a configuration necessity that has no purpose... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Bauer Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:55 PM To: Hibernate devel Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your > peace... I think it should have a name="" attribute so we keep a consistent "catalog" in the Configuration. --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Also, I guess a note about the ordering of the statements is in order.
So the Configuration maintains a list of the bound.
For the create script it appends them unto the end of the current
processing. For the drop script it adds them to the beginning.
So I assume you are referring to the ordering amongst the different
s, which is my previous answer...
Overall, for large mapping sets, I basically envisioned this as being
done in a separate mapping file just like we suggest for things like
cache strategies, etc anyway. The only "fool-proof" way to achieve this
is to introduce a notion of dependencies, which I don't think we want to
get into. That's my $.02 at any rate.
P.S. I choose because in my setup, that's what you
are defining: one database object.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:58 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
so...(maybe just ?)
I do though have some trimming suggestions:
CREATE INDEX ...
...
and
(don't see much
need for a separate tag for the class)
btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
allow grouping
of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that with
single drop/create's ?
/max
> So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
> org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
> through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
> There are two basic usages:
>
> #1:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #2:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
> peace...
>
> Steve
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Actually, probably even better:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String sqlCreateString();
> public String sqlDropString();
> }
>
> ;)
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Yes, but I was more thinking:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String getCreateCommand();
> public String getDropCommand();
> }
>
> because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
> database object...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
>
> And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
> String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
>
> Sounds good.
> I was more thinking like:
>
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>DROP ..
>
>
>
> but I guess both are usable.
>
> /max
>> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
> mentioned
>> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
>> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Max Andersen
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
>> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
>> Subject: Re: testing question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
>> relating
>>> to stored procedure support.
>>>
>>
>> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
>> while
>> running
>> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>>
>> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
>> provided additional DDL's ?
>> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
> for
>>
>> it...maybe our own
>> testing is ?)
>>
>> /max
>>
>>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
>> I'll
>
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
the trimming were not about the CDATA, but about the .
Did not think about the mutally-exclusive choice thing - but we don't
do that normally, e.g. table and .
/max
And the reason I did "definition" as a separate nested element was so
that I could enforce this as a mutually-exclusive choice in the DTD. In
DTD I can say "this nested element OR those other two nested elements".
Plus, you realize that there is no trimming involved at all in your
first example compared to my first example, right? I simply chose CDATA
tags to enclose my text, where you did not...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:58 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
so...(maybe just ?)
I do though have some trimming suggestions:
CREATE INDEX ...
...
and
(don't see much
need for a separate tag for the class)
btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
allow grouping
of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that with
single drop/create's ?
/max
So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
There are two basic usages:
#1:
#2:
If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
peace...
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Actually, probably even better:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String sqlCreateString();
public String sqlDropString();
}
;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
(keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
need to expose the create/drop strings.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
to stored procedure support.
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would
be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And the reason I did "definition" as a separate nested element was so
that I could enforce this as a mutually-exclusive choice in the DTD. In
DTD I can say "this nested element OR those other two nested elements".
Plus, you realize that there is no trimming involved at all in your
first example compared to my first example, right? I simply chose CDATA
tags to enclose my text, where you did not...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:58 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
i don't like database-object, but I don't have a better suggestion,
so...(maybe just ?)
I do though have some trimming suggestions:
CREATE INDEX ...
...
and
(don't see much
need for a separate tag for the class)
btw. the reason for my wish for multiple create/drop's were simply to
allow grouping
of these construct to ensure proper ordering. Can we guarantee that with
single drop/create's ?
/max
> So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
> org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
> through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
> There are two basic usages:
>
> #1:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #2:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
> peace...
>
> Steve
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Actually, probably even better:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String sqlCreateString();
> public String sqlDropString();
> }
>
> ;)
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steve
> Ebersole
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
> To: Hibernate devel
> Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
> Yes, but I was more thinking:
>
> public interface DatabaseObject {
> public String getCreateCommand();
> public String getDropCommand();
> }
>
> because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
> database object...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
>
>
> And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
> String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
>
> Sounds good.
> I was more thinking like:
>
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>CREATE ...
>
>
>DROP ..
>
>
>
> but I guess both are usable.
>
> /max
>> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
> mentioned
>> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
>> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Max Andersen
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
>> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
>> Subject: Re: testing question
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
>> relating
>>> to stored procedure support.
>>>
>>
>> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
>> while
>> running
>> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>>
>> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
>> provided additional DDL's ?
>> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
> for
>>
>> it...maybe our own
>> testing is ?)
>>
>> /max
>>
>>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
>> I'll
>>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
> better
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
>> register
>>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would
be
>>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing.
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
On Aug 8, 2005, at 8:48 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your peace... I think it should have a name="" attribute so we keep a consistent "catalog" in the Configuration. --- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf ___ hibernate-devel mailing list hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
So I have this implemented locally. It actually uses the
org.hibernate.mapping.RelationModel interface. It allows definition
through the mapping file or programmatically via the Configuration.
There are two basic usages:
#1:
#2:
If anyone wants different name(s), speak now or forever hold your
peace...
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Actually, probably even better:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String sqlCreateString();
public String sqlDropString();
}
;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: testing question
>
>
>>
>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
> relating
>> to stored procedure support.
>>
>
> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
> while
> running
> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>
> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
> provided additional DDL's ?
> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
>
> it...maybe our own
> testing is ?)
>
> /max
>
>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
> I'll
>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
>> solutions.
>>
>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
> register
>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>> look like:
>>
>> interface DatabaseObject {
>> void doCreate(Connection conn);
>> void doDrop(Connection conn);
>> }
>>
>> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
>> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
>> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
>> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
>> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>>
>> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
>> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
> though
>> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that
frequency.
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
[Hibernate] RE: testing question
The problem is:
statement.execute("CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
allEmployments \n" +
"RETURN SYS_REFCURSOR \n" +
"AS \n" +
"st_cursor SYS_REFCURSOR; \n" +
"BEGIN \n" +
"OPEN st_cursor FOR \n" +
" SELECT EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER, \n" +
" STARTDATE, ENDDATE, \n" +
" REGIONCODE, EID, VALUE, CURRENCY \n" +
" FROM EMPLOYMENT; \n" +
" RETURN st_cursor; \n " +
"END;\n");
in testEntityStoredProcedure()
You reference a column EMPLOYMENT.EID that does not exist. Oracle does
not throw exceptions on failed stored-procedure/function creation. It
simply returns warnings. I modified this test to fix this bit...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
>
> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
> to stored procedure support.
>
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
> solutions.
>
> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
> look like:
>
> interface DatabaseObject {
> void doCreate(Connection conn);
> void doDrop(Connection conn);
> }
>
> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>
> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
>
> Anyway, thoughts?
>
> Steve
>
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Actually, probably even better:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String sqlCreateString();
public String sqlDropString();
}
;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve
Ebersole
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:54 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: testing question
>
>
>>
>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
> relating
>> to stored procedure support.
>>
>
> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
> while
> running
> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>
> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
> provided additional DDL's ?
> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
>
> it...maybe our own
> testing is ?)
>
> /max
>
>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
> I'll
>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
>> solutions.
>>
>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
> register
>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>> look like:
>>
>> interface DatabaseObject {
>> void doCreate(Connection conn);
>> void doDrop(Connection conn);
>> }
>>
>> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
>> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
>> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
>> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
>> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>>
>> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
>> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
> though
>> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that
frequency.
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
Yes, but I was more thinking:
public interface DatabaseObject {
public String getCreateCommand();
public String getDropCommand();
}
because the CREATE/DROP SQL commands explicit operate on a single
database object...
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 7:49 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
> If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject
mentioned
> (keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
> need to expose the create/drop strings.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Andersen
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
> To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
> Subject: Re: testing question
>
>
>>
>> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
> relating
>> to stored procedure support.
>>
>
> These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
> while
> running
> junit test then that is something that should be failing.
>
> How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
> provided additional DDL's ?
> (been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase
for
>
> it...maybe our own
> testing is ?)
>
> /max
>
>> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
> I'll
>> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has
better
>> solutions.
>>
>> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
> register
>> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
>> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
>> look like:
>>
>> interface DatabaseObject {
>> void doCreate(Connection conn);
>> void doDrop(Connection conn);
>> }
>>
>> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on
non-table
>> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to
the
>> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method
"DatabaseObject[]
>> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
>> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>>
>> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
>> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
> though
>> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that
frequency.
>>
>> Anyway, thoughts?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
Re: [Hibernate] RE: testing question
And here MyTransactSQLTrigger would be a userprovided class that has
String[] createSQL/dropSQL methods ?
Sounds good.
I was more thinking like:
CREATE ...
CREATE ...
DROP ..
but I guess both are usable.
/max
If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject mentioned
(keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
need to expose the create/drop strings.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
to stored procedure support.
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
Anyway, thoughts?
Steve
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] RE: testing question
If we just let them register something like the DatabaseObject mentioned
(keyed by dialect) I guess I'm fine with that. Maybe something like:
Due to "export" feature, I guess DatabaseObject would really instead
need to expose the create/drop strings.
-Original Message-
From: Max Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:36 AM
To: Steve Ebersole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: testing question
>
> This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests
relating
> to stored procedure support.
>
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors
while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
> I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So
I'll
> throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
> solutions.
>
> The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category
register
> "additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
> used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
> look like:
>
> interface DatabaseObject {
> void doCreate(Connection conn);
> void doDrop(Connection conn);
> }
>
> I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
> db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
> existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
> getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
> during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>
> The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
> themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even
though
> we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
>
> Anyway, thoughts?
>
> Steve
>
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
RE: [Hibernate] Re: testing question
exactly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Max
Rydahl Andersen
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:40 AM
To: Hibernate devel
Subject: Re: [Hibernate] Re: testing question
The trick below doesn't work well when you run the unittest standalone
(which
I do constantly from inside eclipse)
/max
>> The reason for this instead of just
>> overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff
when
>> we actually rebuild the session fatory.
>
> I worked on the CaveatEmptor tests and I do this using the TestSetup
> decorator:
>
> public static Test suite() {
>
> TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
>
> suite.addTestSuite( UserTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( ItemTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( CategoryItemTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( AuditTest.class );
> suite.addTestSuite( NestedSetTest.class );
>
> return new HibernateTestSetup(suite);
> }
>
>
> public class HibernateTestSetup extends junit.extensions.TestSetup {
>
> public HibernateTestSetup(Test test) {
> super(test);
> // Enable automatic schema generation for unit testing, if
not
> already set in configuration
> HibernateUtil.getConfiguration().setProperty
> (Environment.HBM2DDL_AUTO, "create-drop");
> }
>
> protected void setUp() throws Exception {
> super.setUp();
> HibernateUtil.rebuildSessionFactory();
> }
>
> protected void tearDown() throws Exception {
> super.tearDown();
> HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().close();
> }
>
> }
>
> This setup/teardown is executed once for the suite I'm wrapping.
>
>
>
> ---
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
&
> QA
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> ___
> hibernate-devel mailing list
> hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
Re: [Hibernate] Re: testing question
The trick below doesn't work well when you run the unittest standalone
(which
I do constantly from inside eclipse)
/max
The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
I worked on the CaveatEmptor tests and I do this using the TestSetup
decorator:
public static Test suite() {
TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
suite.addTestSuite( UserTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( ItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( CategoryItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( AuditTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( NestedSetTest.class );
return new HibernateTestSetup(suite);
}
public class HibernateTestSetup extends junit.extensions.TestSetup {
public HibernateTestSetup(Test test) {
super(test);
// Enable automatic schema generation for unit testing, if not
already set in configuration
HibernateUtil.getConfiguration().setProperty
(Environment.HBM2DDL_AUTO, "create-drop");
}
protected void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
HibernateUtil.rebuildSessionFactory();
}
protected void tearDown() throws Exception {
super.tearDown();
HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().close();
}
}
This setup/teardown is executed once for the suite I'm wrapping.
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing &
QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] Re: testing question
This is the same reason why I always get failures on the tests relating
to stored procedure support.
These tests creates the SP's before testing - thus if you get errors while
running
junit test then that is something that should be failing.
How about simply extending hibernate with the possibility for user
provided additional DDL's ?
(been suggested before by users, but not had any compelling usecase for
it...maybe our own
testing is ?)
/max
I think we should come up with a unified way to approach this. So I'll
throw out my proposal as a starting point and see if anyone has better
solutions.
The basic idea is to have the individual tests in this category register
"additional db objects" with the base test case class; these would be
used during setUp() and tearDown() processing. DatabaseObject might
look like:
interface DatabaseObject {
void doCreate(Connection conn);
void doDrop(Connection conn);
}
I am thinking of a new test base class that tests relying on non-table
db-object creation could extend; or even add this functionality to the
existing TestCase. It would add a single new method "DatabaseObject[]
getAdditionalDatabaseObjects(Dialect dialect)" which it would call
during setUp() processing. The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
The simple option would be to have each test class do this work
themselves in setUp() and tearDown() for each test execution even though
we are not necessarily creating/dropping the schema at that frequency.
Anyway, thoughts?
Steve
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
[Hibernate] Re: testing question
On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
The reason for this instead of just
overriding setUp()/tearDown() would be to only execute this stuff when
we actually rebuild the session fatory.
I worked on the CaveatEmptor tests and I do this using the TestSetup
decorator:
public static Test suite() {
TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
suite.addTestSuite( UserTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( ItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( CategoryItemTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( AuditTest.class );
suite.addTestSuite( NestedSetTest.class );
return new HibernateTestSetup(suite);
}
public class HibernateTestSetup extends junit.extensions.TestSetup {
public HibernateTestSetup(Test test) {
super(test);
// Enable automatic schema generation for unit testing, if
not already set in configuration
HibernateUtil.getConfiguration().setProperty
(Environment.HBM2DDL_AUTO, "create-drop");
}
protected void setUp() throws Exception {
super.setUp();
HibernateUtil.rebuildSessionFactory();
}
protected void tearDown() throws Exception {
super.tearDown();
HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().close();
}
}
This setup/teardown is executed once for the suite I'm wrapping.
---
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
___
hibernate-devel mailing list
hibernate-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hibernate-devel
