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

[Summers Pittman]

On 07/19/2013 03:27 AM, Karel Piwko wrote:
> 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.
+1
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev