Fwd: Re: adding testng after removig of junit

[Dr Andrew John Hughes]

On 19:59 Tue 12 Apr     , Jiri Vanek wrote:

snip...

> >
> > In brief:
> >
> > * With the current solution, we can directly produce the JTreg-like
> > output we want via our subclass and already do.  From what I
> > understand of the TestNG patch, it would produce XML and then we'd
> > have to convert it.  Exactly why is that better?
> 
> Because we DO NOT want jtreg like result. 

Who is 'we'?  If you've read the previous discussion, you'll know that
JTreg output was stated as a requirement so that the test suite worked
well with the build bots.

> Pavel is doing magic to create
> reports as are now from such a bad output. From xml - we have all
> informations. Pavel will use it to produce reports containing stack
> traces, will be able to see directly which ones should fail and which
> should pass. Will be able to separate groups,Will be able to create very
> solid statistics, and whatever we can imagine. It is pitty to lost all
> the information. jtreg-like is just poor summary - and without ant it is
> probably impossible to reach something better.

You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims here.  If you want different output,
you are welcome to submit a different outputter along the lines of the one
Omair wrote for jtreg output and provide a way of using that instead.

> 
> Another advance is extreme configurability (see bottom).
> 

What is 'extreme configurability' and why would we want it?

> 
> >
> > * Switching to TestNG also adds a mass of dependencies which aren't
> > needed with JUnit, making it harder for people to run the test suite.
> >
> 
> testng are three jars. Junit is one jar. I do not see difference whether
> wee need to make special steps to add one jar to classpath or three. Al
> four of them are easily to be found and downloaded. And all are packaged
> in fedora (an in most of distros).

Under what licenses?  This discussion is the first I've heard of TestNG
and the support for it in various distros seems to be immature.  In comparison,
JUnit is well-established and without extraneous dependencies.

> 
> > Unless you can produce a clear example of why switching to TestNG
> > for IcedTea-Web is essential and which overrides the need for all
> > those additional dependencies, I see no reason to drop a solution that
> > works and has already been extensively reviewed.
> >
> 
> What I see essential is output of test framework and configureability.
> junit is not about to be run from commadline. 

Of course it can be run from the command line.  We're doing it right now.

> It is ant tool. 

No it isn't.

> And we do
> not want ant for sure (we have make).
> You will probably never use or run this test. Me, Pavel and Omair will
> do it most of time.

This is a FOSS project.  You can't make assumptions about who will run the
tests.  Distros, for example, will want to run these tests to verify that
IcedTea-Web has built and installed correctly.  Having less dependencies
makes this easier.

Clearly you can't give a clear example of why TestNG is so much better and
have to resort to cheap personal attacks instead.

 And for myself i really wont to configure what i'm
> running. This Luncher class and makefile "send all classes to classpath"
> is dreadfull hack.
> 
> Btw.. I have already posted all of those dis/advantages;)
> >> J.
> >
> 
> 



-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://icedtea.classpath.org
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D  0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37