Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipselink-dev] I need your views (Test Build changes)...

We should not be throwing the 'kitchen sink' at the classpath. Dependencies need to be planned for, tracked and approved. Having the test scripts ensure that only the expected dependencies are available to a set of tests ensures that we do not introduce unexpected dependencies.

The tests can always be run against the test classes but should always run against the deliverables for the component and any dependencies. Although we should add a test target for developers that can run against the classes directories the main target should run against the eclipselink.jar.

Also I do not understand why we would need special tests to test for the eclipselink.jar. If you are running the main target and the eclipselink.jar is not available the tests should fail to run at all.

Perhaps a conference call could work this all out. Perhaps Peter can make arrangements for a conference call on this issue early next week?

Eric Gwin wrote:
Two idealogical items were brought up this week regarding the test builds (I've specifically added an assumed third (disallowing classes)):

1. What to test against:
- Most tests used to throw the kitchen sink into the classpath to get them to work (eclipselink.jar, bundles, and classes
     as well as all possible dependencies)
   - SDO and MOXy always test nightly against the eclipselink.jar only
- To get the rest of the tests working, without a recompile of the product, tests have been added to verify the existence of eclipselink, the bundles, and the classes. Then one set is used in the classpath (in order of preference):
         eclipselink.jar, the bundles, or classes
      - The same target is executed regardless of classpath.
- I included the bundle set in anticipation of testing against OSGi platforms, and because we seem to be promoting the targeted use of eclipselink as an added configuration (therefore we will need the capability of certifying the bundles) - Given the new directive for testing to not recompile the product it seems, it can easily be extended to include "tests should only be run against product jars" (eclipselink, or bundles) when using ant (eclipse testing
   remain unaffected).

2. Dynamic vs Static Testing
Rather than running a test target against any available set of product classes (eclipselink.jar, the bundles, or class dirs), a preference has been stated to use static targets for a configuration set. - The reason is to ensure that you are testing against what you think you are. For example "test-srg-using-jar" would only and always run the SRG against the product jar, "test-srg-using-bundles" and "test-srg-using-classes" would only test
     against the bundle jars and classes respectively.
- The down-side is that scripts would need to be focused for a specific methodology, and couldn't be reused for multiple purposes.

To limit impact on testing and development I had been approaching the reorg design utilizing a dynamic approach. I can see the benefit for going to a static approach, but I need your input first.

I can also see a benefit to disallowing class testing, but the rigidity may cause problems later. Certainly product-only defaults can be setup.

Irregardless of the outcome, I plan on continuing to test availability first and report a missing dependency in the effort to increase usability and robustness, as well as reduce debug time.

Anyone have strong preferences?
-Should the tests dynamically target the product using a single target, or should configuration-specific static targets be used? -Should testing against jars be enforced? If so does this include testing jars (vs allowing test classes) (in some cases this is
already necessary, in others it is not)?

eclipselink-dev mailing list

Back to the top