Hi Vladimir -- On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, at 13:06 [-0800], Vladimir R. Bossicard...:
> > I have been struggling with the test harness and want to propose some > > changes. The things that are bothering me are: > > Finally a real-life problem to solve :-) > > > 1) It is currently impossible to run any of the integration tests (and I > > believe some of the unit tests) by themselves. When I have lots of > > debuggin turned on, it's a real pain to wade through the output of a > > hundred tests in order to look at just one. > > To have fewer connection/disconnection I (too) heavily used SetUp extensions. > But this is a JUnit problem more than a Xindice-test problems. When a suite() > method returns a TestSetup object, the TestSetup methods are not executed if > you > reexecute a single test contained in the suite() returned object. And > reexecuting a test is the same thing as executing a single test from a suite. > > It's an excellent point but changing the tests to accomodate JUnit is not the > best solution I can think of. But let me a few days to think of it. I have a > TestRunner on the work so maybe it's the solution (finally a real > TestRunner!). I agree that the design of JUnit leaves a lot to be desired. How they missed putting the tearDown into a finally block I'll never know. And why not do so in a new release? I hope you can get VJUnit working soon, or can think of a better alternative than return to JUnit. I'm sure trying! However, if you foresee it being a while before you have a solid solution, and we can't come up with something that allows clean flexible use of the tests, I'd prefer to go back to dumb old JUnit and do the dumb JUnit thing: do the clean up before and after. Tacky, annoying... but effective. > > 2) In the integration tests, I'm often not seeing the name of the test > > in stack traces. I haven't figured this one out yet, but it makes it > > really hard to figure out what test caused the problem. > > can you give me the name of a test method and I'll have a look. I wish I could, and I know how hard it is to debug a problem that you can't see in action! I was hoping you'd just know what I was talking about. Next time I see it, I'll let you know. > > > big deal when the time scale is being set by disk accesses. > > and by XMLRPC connection time... which may (or may not) be a big deal > > > If there's no major disagreement, I'd appreciate some help from Vladimir > > (aka Dr. Test) on how to make these changes while taking advantage of > > his junit addons in order to get guaranteed tearDown. > > That's what I said: if you want to guarantee tearDown, you'll have a hard time > executing one single test. I am only 99% sure of what I just said, I have to > check this out. > > In the meantime, you can always redefine your AllTests.java to only include > part > of the tests to run (it's not optimal, I know). Urk! :) > > -Vladimir > > -- > Vladimir R. Bossicard > Apache Xindice - http://xml.apache.org/xindice > > > Regards, Gary
