Eric, Thanks,
Is there a general principal, as to the granularity of tests, should they be written against methods or 'use cases'? I guess if they are written against public methods then you cover the the use cases as well and its easier to deal with when a test fails. Does this make sense? This week I've got the file upload progress stuff in use in production with turbine 2.3. I want to write some tests to submit for both commons-fileupload and turbine. Regards, Peter On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 01:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Urgh.. YOu asked the difficult question! Cactus, Junit, or HttpUnit.... > > Following the KISS principle, if you can write your test using JUnit, that > is best, because it involves the fewest moving parts. HttpUnit, because > Maven doesn't provide an integrated plugin requires the most. And Cactus, > well, I find it very heavy for testing... Take a look at the src/test tree > of code, there is code testing templates. I feel somewhat like code testing > finding templates/screens/actions is showhow similar... > > If this doesn't help, let me know and I'll try and make a more concrete > suggestions! > > Long live test driven development! > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Courcoux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 6:42 PM > To: Turbine Developers List > Subject: RE: [PATCH] UIManager > > > Eric, > > In the dim and distant past I did look at an XP site and vow to write > tests - I think I even recall writing one ... you can guess what > happened. > > Good motivation though. Keep it up. > > The issue is the corruption of the Properties object, which is supposed > to be session scoped, by concurrent users. > > Could you make the learning curve a bit more shallow for me and point me > in the right direction, may be even a test that I could adapt. Should I > be looking at JUnit, HttpUnit or Cactus for this type of thing. > > Regards, > > Peter > > > > On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 22:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Do you by chance have a testcase that demonstrates this? If you could add > > one, I;ll go ahead and commit your change.. > > > > On my quest to get more testcases! > > > > Eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Courcoux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:43 PM > > To: Turbine Developers List > > Subject: [PATCH] UIManager > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I attach a patch for your consideration. > > > > Skins for the UIManager were being corrupted by other users skins, when > > the UIManager is being used as a session scoped tool. Turns out that the > > Skin Properties are held in a static property of the class! > > > > The patch simply removes the 'static' keyword. > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter > > > > Index: UIManager.java > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: > > > /home/cvspublic/jakarta-turbine-2/src/java/org/apache/turbine/services/pull/ > > util/UIManager.java,v > > retrieving revision 1.9 > > diff -u -r1.9 UIManager.java > > --- UIManager.java 3 Jun 2003 13:41:27 -0000 1.9 > > +++ UIManager.java 13 Jun 2003 21:32:48 -0000 > > @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ > > * Properties to hold the name/value pairs > > * for the skin. > > */ > > - private static Properties skinProperties; > > + private Properties skinProperties; > > > > /** > > * Initialize the UIManager object. > > -- Peter Courcoux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
