On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 16:50, Morgan Delagrange wrote: > Hi all, > > I made a first pass at converting the JSP tests to a > format which, I think, is more organized: > > >http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-watchdog-4.0/latka-scratch/src/distribution/tests/ > > The idea is that we use ENTITY declarations to specify > each package in the Watchdog suite. Then you can > place any entities you want in a suite, which should > allow you to construct tests as large as all the > Servlet and JSP tests combined, or as small as a > single package. > > >http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-watchdog-4.0/latka-scratch/src/distribution/tests/dtds/jsp-tests.ent > > >http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-watchdog-4.0/latka-scratch/src/distribution/tests/dtds/servlet-tests.ent > > I think that there would be a physical XML > file for running just the JSP tests, just the Servlet > tests, or both at the same time. It may also be > possible to construct a command-line interface that > will allow you to select a single entity or group of > entities to execute, removing the need for XML files > that exercise each package. I think JDOM allows you > to generate entities dynamically, but I'd need to > experiment. > > Part of this proposal involved changing the mappings > (servlet, filter, etc.) in the servlet-tests and > servlet-compat webapps to use fully qualified package > names as test paths instead of the current, cryptic > versions. I made a programmatic pass at this, which > you can find here (JDOM messed up the spacing a bit): > > >http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-watchdog-4.0/latka-scratch/src/distribution/tests/servlet-tests.web.xml > > These are working test suites. The JSP tests seem to > run perfectly. The Servlet tests currently produce 21 > errors (and 327 successes :), most of which I > introduced when I remapped the Servlets. Most of the > errors introduced are probably trivial; a few might > require minor changes to the test servlets. > > I think this new servlet mapping format is much more > clear. As an example, here is a GTest element with > the old servlet mapping and the corresponding Latka > test with the proposed new servlet mapping: > > GTest: > <watchdog > request="GET > /servlet-tests/hsreqw/HttpServletRequestWrapperConstructorTest > HTTP/1.0" > > testName="HttpServletRequestWrapperConstructorTest" > debug="0" > host="${host}" port="${port}" exactMatch="true" > > >goldenFile="${wgdir}/javax_servlet_http/HttpServletRequestWrapper/HttpServletRequestWrapperConstructorTest.html" > assertion="A HttpServletRequestWrapper object > should be returned when the request object is passed > into the constructor. Java Specification v2.3 Sec 14." > testStrategy="Construct a request object wrapping > the given request." > /> > > Latka: > <request followRedirects="false" version="1.0" > label="HttpServletRequestWrapperConstructorTest" > > >path="/servlet-tests/tests/javax_servlet_http/HttpServletRequestWrapper/HttpServletRequestWrapperConstructorTestServlet"> > <validate> > <!--TEST STRATEGY: Construct a request object > wrapping the given request.--> > <goldenFile > >fileName="${servlet-wgdir}/javax_servlet_http/HttpServletRequestWrapper/HttpServletRequestWrapperConstructorTest.html" > ignoreWhitespace="true" > label="A HttpServletRequestWrapper object > should be returned when the request object is passed > into the constructor. Java Specification v2.3 Sec 14." > /> > </validate> > </request> > > I think tying the servlet mapping to the test package > will make maintenance and development tasks easier. > > If we decide to proceed down this path, we would need > to winnow away the remaining errors (shouldn't take > long). Then we'd want to write a Latka driver for > Watchdog, which could plug the known directory > structure and variables of the Watchdog tests into > Latka automatically. Then I believe we'd be close to > something releasable.
+1. I think this looks good. Only item I would like to add is that we rework the watchdog directory structure. It's a bit unorganized as it stands now (at least that's my opinion). > > I haven't been spending any time on the non-4.0 tests, > and I would just as soon leave them be, unless there > were strong objections to the contrary. > > Comments? Another thought is the mavenization of Watchdog. This seems the be the current trend, and I could see some benefits for doing so. Anyone against going this route? > > - Morgan > > > ===== > Morgan Delagrange > http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons > http://axion.tigris.org > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better > http://health.yahoo.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
