juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Viens" <svi...@attbi.com>
Subject RE: [juddi-Developers] using junit
Date Thu, 29 May 2003 20:13:04 GMT
Hi Andy, to be honest I haven't given it much thought since coming to
the conclusion that jUDDI needs a JUnit test suite. I like the fact that
JUnit is well documented, open-source and has such a large installed
base. The fact that JUnit also includes Ant tasks is another bonus IMHO.

The mock-up of the new jUDDI 1.0 directory structure (juddi.zip) that I
sent out earlier in the week included a dummy jUDDI TestCase under the
src/test directory. The build.xml file in that archive also included a
'test' target that built and ran that test (something to check out - not
sure if anyone noticed).

As far as how the jUDDI test suite is layed out... I am thinking of
creating different TestSuite for different application layers. jUDDI can
be broken down into a Service layer, a Persistence layer a Transport/XML
Marshalling layer (more?). We could also create TestSuites based on the
different 'modules' ... Authenticator, DataStore, UUIDGenerator, etc.
There's nothing wrong with lots of cross testing.

Just some random thoughts. You can never have enough tests.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: juddi-developers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:juddi-developers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Andy
Cutright
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:07 PM
To: juddi-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [juddi-Developers] using junit


hi steve, et.al.,

i've read the junit 'cookbook'. i want to understand your goals for the 
test suite. do you want to use junit to provide automated testing, and 
standard error reporting? and to provide a common framework / style to 
make the suite easily extensible/ maintained?

i think my few tests can extend junit's TestCase base class. they 
already offer a run() method, in the junit style. junit has some strong 
points. i like the setup()/ teardown() idea. i don't want test cases 
creating artifacts that will affect other classes. being a standards guy

(CORBA/ J2EE), i like a well documented standard. and the fact that it's

already -documented- is nice too. my concern is style i suppose: the 
juddi test cases are sufficiently complex that imposing the formal 
structure of setup()/ run()/ shutdown() isn't going to scale, imo.

if we make each test class extend TestCase and implement the run(), 
we'll still be able to use the standard junit error reporting, and the 
junit test harnesses. i'll have some working examples tomorrow
afternoon.

thoughts?

cheers,
andy



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay
Get office equipment for less on eBay!
http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5
_______________________________________________
juddi-developers mailing list juddi-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/juddi-developers




Mime
View raw message