[aerogear-dev] PushEE testing POC

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Kris Borchers <kris at redhat.com> wrote:

> I would be ok with 2 or 3. I can see the advantages and disadvantages of
> both scenarios. I would never, ever do 1.
>




> To me, the src directory is for just that, source, and should never be
> cluttered with tests.
>

in maven, it's default that SOURCE code goes to "src/main/$LANGUAGE"; tests
(unit tests) go to "src/test/$LANGUAGE"

-M



>
> On May 21, 2013, at 4:11 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, we have 3 options where to put tests:
>>
>> 1/ Have them tightly integrated - that would be src/test
>> 2/ Have them next to actual code - that's current proposal
>> 3/ Have them in separate repository - that's Matthias option
>>
>> I chose 2/ because that way people are not required to setup anything to
>>
>
> well, it's not really tied to the maven default layout;
> folks have to explictily cd into the "tests" folder, at root level;
> Also, I guess you need separated CI hooks for that
>
>
>
>
>> code on the component while being aware something like integration tests
>> exists and it's not that difficult to fix them if broken by your last
>> commit.
>>
>
> fair point, but they can be always executed against the latest snapshot.
>
>
>
>> That's the main reason why I do not like 3/, separate lifecycle for tests
>> adds
>> entry barrier for test development and maintenance.
>
>
> cd tests (at root level), make this already very similar to a separate
> project, hence it has
> an individual "lifecycle", right ?
>
>
>
>> Option 1/ is the best if
>> the set of test tools is stable, which is unfortunately not the case yet,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>
> For me, personally src/test is more for unit/mock testing. But that's just
> personal preference.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Personally, I do not like integration tests being kept separately. With
>> Arquillian, the boundary between integration and unit test is very blur,
>> so
>> so the only point keeping tests separated is developer turnaround - test
>> execution feedback should be quick. So, if you guys figure out that
>> integration
>> tests take too much time in future, I'd opt for making smoke profile with
>> a
>> subset of selected tests and full profile for CI purposes.
>>
>> Karel
>>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:30:24 -0300
>> Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Karel, why do not follow conventions? src/test?
>> >
>> >
>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html
>> >
>> > Karel Piwko wrote:
>> > > Hi All,
>> > >
>> > > I've just sent a PR for PushEE testing [1]. The idea is to write tests
>> > > covering specification and simply execute those against a real running
>> > > server instance. More details at [2].
>> > >
>> > > I have evaluated multiple API approaches, described here[3], Groovy
>> and
>> > > Spock seems to be the best to me.
>> > >
>> > > Any comments/suggestions/objections very welcomed. My plan is to start
>> > > covering specs we have so far and run it on a CI server.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Karel
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://github.com/matzew/pushee/pull/6/
>> > > [2] https://github.com/kpiwko/pushee/blob/tests/tests/readme.txt
>> > > [3] https://gist.github.com/kpiwko/5612949
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
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/20130521/84891a81/attachment.html