[rfc][icedtea-web] Refactor of LiveConnect Tests Version 2

[Andrew Azores]

On 06/17/2014 09:54 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 03:38 PM, Andrew Azores wrote:
>> On 06/17/2014 09:34 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2014 09:58 PM, Jie Kang wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>> I ran the reproducer suite with this patch applied last night. 
>>>>> There are
>>>>> still some tests which are failing but not marked as KnownToFail. I
>>>>> haven't checked if these failures are repeatable however. Can you 
>>>>> look
>>>>> into this?
>>>>>
>>>>> JavascriptSetTest - AppletJToJSSet_2DArrayElement_Test
>>>>> JSToJFuncResolTest - 
>>>>> AppletJSToJFuncResol_inheritedClassToParent1_Test
>>>>> JavascriptFuncReturnTest -
>>>>> AppletJToJSFuncReturn_{number,boolean,JSObject,String,Object}_Test
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've checked the failures and fixed the FuncReturn test cases (typo).
>>>>
>>>> The JavascriptSetTest has some weird behavio
>>> ur where the failure occurs because the applet's init method didn't 
>>> print out "applet
>>> initialized". This failure does not happen very often at all and I 
>>> will look into it.
>>>>
>>>> The JSToJFuncResolTest failure has been marked Known to Fail. I've 
>>>> checked the test and found
>>>> another bug in the LiveConnect code unrelated to the fixes made in 
>>>> this patch. I have prepared
>>>> another patch that fixes this bug and will send it after this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the review!
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Andrew A
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jie Kang
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not understand why the existence of shared dir is needed at 
>>> all. All what is copied from
>>> resources *is* already shared.
>>>
>>> What have I missed?
>>>
>>> Otherwise excellent work on liveconnect !
>>>
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>> It's already shared but it's really not obvious. The current way also 
>> forces all of the tests to be
>> built and deployed to the test server dir so that it's impossible to 
>> reliably build/deploy/run only
>> one reproducer at a time, if things are shared between test cases. 
>> The shared dir is more explicit,
>> which is already nice, but it also is a step toward allowing 
>> different tests to actually be built
>> and run independently from the rest. This, if/when it ever gets done, 
>> would be a very very welcome
>> improvement to the test suite IMO.
>>
>
> Well then it do not need special target, but some reproducer (in 
> simple) with resources only will suffice.
>
> What do you think?
>

Jie did propose this but I asked him to continue with the patch anyway 
because it's plausible, I think, for there to be shared resources 
between say a simple and a custom reproducer. In this situation, it's 
very not-obvious that the resources can be shared this way, unless you 
actually go digging to find out. But yes the same end result can be had 
by simply putting contents at simple/SharedResources/resources. However, 
this is again blocking the possibility of making the test suite able to 
build/run reproducers independently, since this would be an "independent 
test case" and any other test cases relying on shared resources would 
then not be able to be run without the shared one "building".

Thanks,

-- 
Andrew A