Re: [eclipselink-dev] I need your views (Test Build changes)...
Gordon Yorke wrote:
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
I agree it is one of the tings I've been trying to clean up.
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
ok. Basically in-line with Blaise. Static targets.
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.
The 'test' referred to here is not an eclipselink test, but an ant task
to verify the dependency exists ('available' task). I believe it is
preferable to have the build fail with a message notifying the user of
the missing dependencies, rather than having them trudge through
compile/runtime errors trying to figure out what happened.
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
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
- 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
eclipselink-dev mailing list