[icedtea-web] RFC: add unit tests for the jnlp parser

[Jiri Vanek]

On 03/24/2011 03:16 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 08:45 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> On 16:26 Wed 23 Mar , Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>> * Omair Majid<omajid at redhat.com> [2011-03-22 15:09]:
>>>> The unit tests rely on the testng framework. The patch adds optional
>>>> dependencies on testng, qdox and bsh for running these unit tests. I
>>>> have also added a dependency on xlst for transforming the test
>>>> output into a more jtreg-like format (useful for the buildbots)
>>>>
>>>> I also looked into using junit for these tests, but junit's command
>>>> line output is rather limited. To generate xml output, ant is
>>>> required as well.
>
>> Well, before I even look at the patch, I want to be sure all this
>> additional
>> crap is needed. I've never even heard of any of these and having them all
>> as requirements is going to make it less likely that people will run
>> tests.
>>
>> Are there no simpler solutions? I do remember junit was fairly
>> self-contained
>> the last time I used it, but that was circa 2003.
>
> I am not too familiar with all the testing frameworks out there. I have
> only used junit myself (and now I have dabbled in testng). These tests
> have two target audiences - those building icedtea-web (especially the
> buildbots) and programmers. Both need command line output to tell if the
> tests are failing/passing.
>
> Naturally, I tried out junit first. I ran into an issue: it doesn't have
> any good textual output (and does not support any formatting, though its
> IDE-integration is quite good). It only shows tests failures, and a one
> line summary for the entire test suite. There is no way to get
> jtreg-like output. This is probably more of a concern for the buildbot
> than anything else.
>
> I can work around it by writing a front end to it (already done, but I
> am not sure about the licensing here), or using something like ant to
> generate xml output which can be transformed (similar to how I have done
> it for testng) to text.
>
> The second thing I tried was testng. This, of course, ends up requiring
> a number of jars that the builders may not have, though most
> distributions have testng packages.
>
> Any preferences on what to do? Should I just give up on formatting text
> results to be more jtreg-like? That would make it much simpler (and we
> will be able to use junit). Any other suggestions for test frameworks or
> how to make this work?
>
> Thanks,
> Omair

Are three jars rally to much??