<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Bevenius <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel.bevenius@gmail.com" target="_blank">daniel.bevenius@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I personally don't have a problem with mixing languages when it comes to testing. <div>The way I see it is users new to our project will probably not even look at tests at all to start with. Those that end up wanting to contribute will be exposed to them, but I think they would see this as a chance to learn some new techniques. At least this is how I would see it if I was in their shoes. </div>
<div>I've not used Spock and would be interested in trying it to see if there is an advantage in using it.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1 </div><div style>Further more, let's not forget the scope of this discussion : </div>
<div style>- We are talking about using a DSL (in this case written in Groovy which is, whatever people can say really really close to Java, you can even write Java in Groovy) to be able to write human readable integration tests not really about introducing a new language.</div>
<div style>- We are not speaking of mixing languages in our core libraries.</div><div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>
<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On 16 July 2013 14:12, Bruno Oliveira <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruno@abstractj.org" target="_blank">bruno@abstractj.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I agree with Matthias and I'll summarize in one sentence about AGSEC. I<br>
won't mix up any other language with Java, period.<br>
<div><br>
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:<br>
> Hi Karel,<br>
><br>
> thanks for starting the thread and summarizing all the facts/statements<br>
> from the previous discussion!<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Karel Piwko <<a href="mailto:kpiwko@redhat.com" target="_blank">kpiwko@redhat.com</a><br>
</div><div><div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kpiwko@redhat.com" target="_blank">kpiwko@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> let me summarize the discussion from previous threads:<br>
><br>
> What were testing requirements?<br>
> * Do not mock<br>
> * Cover both backend and frontend testing at the same time<br>
> * Control test env from tests/Maven, so it runs on both CI and local<br>
> machine<br>
> without any setup required<br>
> => Those 3 requirements limited us to use Arquillian<br>
> * Cover unified push server specifications in readable way<br>
><br>
> Why Groovy instead of Java?<br>
> + Better support for JSON<br>
> + Spock provides very nice BDD support<br>
> + Still supports anything Java would do<br>
><br>
> What problems we faced with Groovy?<br>
> - Needs specific compiler - solved, configured for tests only<br>
> - Needs support in IDE - Intellij - ootb, Eclipse and NetBeans have<br>
> plugins<br>
> - Needs to be deployed in test deployment - not addressed now,<br>
> prolongs test<br>
> execution by few seconds per deployment<br>
><br>
> What are currently raised concerns?<br>
> - Different language for development and testing<br>
> - Raises bar for newcomers willing to write tests<br>
><br>
><br>
> that's the 'concerns' I share as well: it a little burden on getting<br>
> back contributions, since the source of the server is java.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Also, what would happen if others decide let's add Ruby and also Perl<br>
> for some sort of tests? That would mean a language nightmare, IMO :)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thank you for additional advantages, concerns or proving some of<br>
> those are not<br>
> valid.<br>
><br>
> Karel<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
</div></div>> <a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><br>
<div>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Matthias Wessendorf<br>
><br>
> blog: <a href="http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/</a><br>
> sessions: <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf</a><br>
> twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mwessendorf</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
<br>
--<br>
</div>abstractj<br>
<div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>