Sure. I have some things to do this morning but will try to get to it this weekend.
In general junit interaction is quite limited wrapping library test methods with junit methods ( junit test methods catch specific exceptions and fail accordingly). This worked fine in the short term though I think that there could be some more elegant or flexible approach in the future. Robbie. On 12/7/06, David Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robbie, I'd like to learn more about your general test libraries. Can you provide examples of using your libraries with JUnit and/or source/javadoc? Also, with JUnit, would the calls to your libraries be isolated to JUnit fixtures, *e.g., @Before and @After methods? Thank you. David * On 12/7/06, Robbie Minshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This sounds quite good. > > I have written some test cases with Brian Murray which I would be happy to > contribute to tuscany. Identifying duplication and differences in similar > tests would probably be an intersting excercise right off the bat. > > One decision that we spent a little time mulling over was the framework to > use for our test suite. Originally we used the much loved junit harness > which worked well. Different runtimes ( command line, J2EE Application > Server, a Service Container ) have different classloader hierarchies etc. > Without many modifications to the junit code it was difficult and quite > ugly > testing SDO within the context of a variety of runtimes which the SDO APIs > > will be used. > > We took the approach of writing general test libraries which can then > simply > be called from a variety of test frameworks such as junit or a simple J2EE > or SCA Application test harness. I like this approach for keeping the > actual test code very simple, allowing for integration a variety of test > frameworks, and providing ability to test directly within the different > runtimes people care about. > > Any thoughts on this ? > > Robbie > > > > > On 12/1/06, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Andy, > > please attach them to the JIRA for this work and one of us can pick > them > > up, thanks. > > Best Regards, Kelvin. > > > > On 01/12/06, Andy Grove (Contractor) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > I was previously working with Kelvin Goodson to donate some junit > tests > > > on behalf of Rogue Wave Software. > > > > > > These tests are written purely to the SDO API and I have validated > that > > > the tests do run against Tuscany as well as Rogue Wave's > implementation. > > > > > > > > > Should I send the tests to Kelvin? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Andy. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dan Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 30 November 2006 17:44 > > > To: Tuscany Developers; Tuscany Users > > > Subject: Proposal for a (Java) community test suite for SDO > > > > > > I would like to propose starting a community test suite for service > data > > > objects (SDO CTS) implementations written in Java. Based on feedback > > > from an > > > earlier post this seems to be the first logical step in getting > > > interoperable SDO implementations in all languages. I can see this > > > leading > > > to an interoperability test suite to check serialisation between > > > implementations also works (across languages and implementations). > > > > > > Proposal for Community Test Suite (CTS) for SDO > > > Develop a test suite to validate an SDO implementation behaves as > > > expected, > > > according to the community's understanding of the SDO specification. > > > Should > > > the specification appear ambiguous or unclear then the community will > > > decide > > > what to do; it may decide to test the area with an agreed expected > > > behaviour, or decide not to test this area. Ambiguities will be fed > back > > > to > > > the specification group for clarification. Although we will run this > > > against > > > Tuscany, the test suite will only test things that we think any > > > implementation should support. > > > > > > The SDO CTS will enable developers to choose or switch SDO > > > implementations > > > without the concern of having to re-code a significant proportion of > > > their > > > application due to differences between implementations. This community > > > test > > > suite will first focus on areas identified important to developers of > > > SDO > > > applications. SDO users feedback and involvement will be crucial to > the > > > success of this effort. Over time this may grow to include a large > > > proportion of the SDO specification, however the suite should grow > > > according > > > to the community's desire, rather than attempting to be a validation > or > > > compliancy suite. > > > > > > To encourage everyone with an interest in SDO to contribute and use > the > > > suite, I propose we : > > > > > > 1. Create a separate module in SVN to separate this from Tuscany > > > components and testcases. > > > 2. Make use of a java package namespace that is not attributable to > > > either Tuscany or any other SDO implementation: test.sdo > > > 3. Refactor some of the existing Tuscany SDO Java test cases to > > > remove > > > any Tuscany specific coding and re-package these to the test.sdo > > > namespace. > > > 4. Accept tests from anyone who wishes to contribute them under > > > normal > > > Apache contribution conditions. > > > > > > > > > SDO users involvement will be crucial to this effort, developers of > SDO > > > implementations will benefit by contributing to and consuming a > > > community > > > test suite, rather than working on their own. > > > > > > Who's up for working on this with me ? > > > > > > If you are interested in joining this effort; have any concerns, > > > comments or > > > suggestions please append them... > > > > > > Thanks in advance to all those who volunteer :) > > > Dan > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > * * * Charlie * * * > Check out some pics of little Charlie at > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/ > > Check out Charlie's al crapo blog at http://robbieminshall.blogspot.com > > * * * Addresss * * * > 1914 Overland Drive > Chapel Hill > NC 27517 > > * * * Number * * * > 919-225-1553 > >
-- * * * Charlie * * * Check out some pics of little Charlie at http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/sets/ Check out Charlie's al crapo blog at http://robbieminshall.blogspot.com * * * Addresss * * * 1914 Overland Drive Chapel Hill NC 27517 * * * Number * * * 919-225-1553
