Hmm I think it would be better to keep things standard and use the unit tests framework and maven.

On 6/4/13 9:33 AM, Alex O'Ree wrote:

That's the idea. I think its possible but we'll need to find a way to identify test classes without knowing a priori. This will make it more robust and hands off. I'll see what i can do

On Jun 4, 2013 8:28 AM, "Kurt T Stam" <kurt.stam@gmail.com> wrote:
That way we get all the reporting options for free?

On 6/3/13 11:32 AM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
We don't require maven or the source code to run jUDDI, why should the
TCK require any of those?

Assuming we don't have those, there's no class that I know of that
will start the tests from the command line. What it should be
something as simple as this:
java -jar uddi-tck.jar <path to config file>

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Kurt T Stam <kurt.stam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/3/13 10:08 AM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
Lots.

1) we don't distribute maven, the source code and all of the other
dependencies with the client jar packages
Hmm. I don't think having to download maven is an issue, and if you really
feel that strongly I guess we cold add maven (and java?) to the distro, one
needs somekind of build tool. I'd rather stick with maven.

2) it won't work if you're on an isolated network
The -O option should fix that.

3) is a full source code checkout really necessary in order to
validate that someone else's product is valid?
No it should be running of the code we ship in the distribution.

The goal here is to make the tck a usable product without a full up
dev environment, maven, or network connectivity. Maven is great for
some things, not for all things

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Kurt T Stam <kurt.stam@gmail.com> wrote:
What's wrong with running maven?


On 6/3/13 9:53 AM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
Even if we include the unit tests, there's no void main function that
will trigger the tests, the configuration loads from within the jar,
not from a user definable location, and running junit tests from
within your own app is a bit tricky (unless we know we're never going
to add another test ever again, thus the reflection).

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Kurt T Stam <kurt.stam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe I'm missing the point, but why can't they run the way they are
now?
All we have to do is to add the uddi-tck-test.jar, which for omitted by
mistake..
No?

Cheers,

--Kurt


On 6/2/13 12:57 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
Relevant Tickets:
JUDDI-314 Create a juddi-client-bundle-3.0.0 with jar, source and
javadocs for juddi-client and uddi-ws
JUDDI-583 Productize the TCK test suite

I'm attempting to formulate a plan to turn the UDDI TCK into both a
testing platform for jUDDI (as it is now) and be able to run the test
suites as a standalone program (without requiring a full checkout).

Currently, all Unit Test cases (/src/test) are within uddi-tck, and
all setup and configure the code is in uddi-tck-base (/src/main)


In order to facilitate this change, I've came up with an idea and was
wondering if anyone else had a better one before I devote time and
effort into it.
1) Use reflection to identify all classes with test cases from
uddi-tck, then use JUnitCore to execute them. In addition, rework the
configuration loading bits to load files from disk instead of from
within the jar file. This requires the test classes (src/test) to be
included in the udid-tck jar file.

2) Refactor all existing test cases to uddi-tck/src/main and rework
the actually uddi-tck/src/test classes to call the code from src/main.
I only think this should be required if for some reason the test
classes can't be included with the tck jar file see (JUDDI-314). Then
use some kind of reflection to find all test cases and execute them.


In either case, it would be nice to have a formatted xml output which
identifies all the tests cases that failed and the relevant output.
Similar to the surefire test reports, but more user friendly.