[aerogear-dev] To Groovy or not to Groovy in integration tests

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>wrote:

>  On 07/16/2013 07:09 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
> Hi Karel,
>
>  thanks for starting the thread and summarizing all the facts/statements
> from the previous discussion!
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> let me summarize the discussion from previous threads:
>>
>> What were testing requirements?
>> * Do not mock
>>
>      * Cover both backend and frontend testing at the same time
>> * Control test env from tests/Maven, so it runs on both CI and local
>> machine
>>   without any setup required
>> => Those 3 requirements limited us to use Arquillian
>> * Cover unified push server specifications in readable way
>>
>> Why Groovy instead of Java?
>> + Better support for JSON
>> + Spock provides very nice BDD support
>> + Still supports anything Java would do
>>
>> What problems we faced with Groovy?
>> - Needs specific compiler - solved, configured for tests only
>> - Needs support in IDE - Intellij - ootb, Eclipse and NetBeans have
>>   plugins
>>
>   Not really, if you are using Maven as your project format then the IDEs
> really don't have to do any work.  The latest NetBeans has not craptacular
> Groovy out of the box as well.
>
>   - Needs to be deployed in test deployment - not addressed now, prolongs
>> test
>>   execution by few seconds per deployment
>>
>> What are currently raised concerns?
>> - Different language for development and testing
>>
>   Why is this a concern?
>
>   - Raises bar for newcomers willing to write tests
>>
>   Other than ending a FooTest in .groovy or .java how does it actually
> raise the bar?
>

true



>
>
>  that's the 'concerns' I share as well: it a little burden on getting
> back contributions, since the source of the server is java.
>
>
>  Also, what would happen if others decide let's add Ruby and also Perl
> for some sort of tests? That would mean a language nightmare, IMO :)
>
> We reject the PR.
>

:-)



> Groovy is a much "easier" language than Java.  Sure it will allow people
> to write some particularly hellish code, but we just punt those PRs.
>
> Punting the PR is also the answer for what happens if someone adds Ruby or
> Perl.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Thank you for additional advantages, concerns or proving some of those
>> are not
>> valid.
>>
>   Pros of Groovy:
> * Built in examples of how to call the code from a Groovy based
> application.
> * It gives us a carrot to hang in front of community members who might not
> want to write Java or who want to stretch their polyglot legs.
>
> Cons of Groovy:
> * Language is slippery.  Lots of ways to do something which could be quite
> abstract or opaque.
> * If we use indy then we are committing to Java 7+
> * It does require us to make some annoying trade offs w.r.t simplicty of
> our build.
> * One more point of failure in a build
>
>
>> Karel
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing listaerogear-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130716/a90f2909/attachment.html