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

[Karel Piwko]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:58:01 +0200
Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:18:40 -0300
> > Douglas Campos <qmx at qmx.me> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Karel for the well balanced email.
> > >
> > > This discussion will never reach an agreement, because it's a biased
> > > discussion, and we do have personal preferences involved - I for one
> > > can't stand Groovy.
> >
> > We need to reach at some for of (temporary) agreement. QE needs to continue
> > developing tests and so far we are simply "stuck" in the middle of
> > discussion
> > whether to continue with current tooling or not.
> >
> 
> 
> My current preference is - long term - using Java.
> 
> IMO this does NOT need to be ported now, as we speak, but soon.

Sounds like a plan. We'll continue sending PRs in Groovy and revisit the code
early Sep then.

> 
> 
> After my vacation (End of August / early Sep.) I am happy to help porting
> the tests to Java, but not now.
> 
> 
> -Matthias
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > >
> > > And that's the reason I strongly advocate for keeping it to Java - this
> > > is a Groovy vs Java, while it should've been X vs Java - Scala specs2,
> > > RSpec (via JRuby), Jasmine or Mocha (via DynJS or Rhino) - Heck, even
> > > Clojure would be easier to work than Java.
> >
> > Cradle of best Czech beer for anybody who adds Arquillian support into
> > Jasmine or Mocha ;-)
> >
> > >
> > > Unless we have a broad discussion over all those languages (which
> > > honestly I don't think we have time for that) we should stick to the
> > > lowest common denominator, which is (unfortunately) Java.
> > >
> > > fwiw, I can see the value of s/Groovy/dynamic JVM lang for tests/ - any
> > > of them would fit the bill - what I can't let go is the partiality of
> > > the debate.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 01:03:43PM +0200, Karel Piwko 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
> > > > - 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
> > > > - Raises bar for newcomers willing to write tests
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for additional advantages, concerns or proving some of those
> > are
> > > > not valid.
> > > >
> > > > Karel
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > https://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
> >
> 
> 
>