[Hawkular-dev] JUnit and TestNG

[Peter Palaga]

Hi John, thanks for posting this here so that everybody can see and 
comment. More inline...

On 01/23/2015 07:41 PM, John Sanda wrote:
> The decision was made a while ago to migrate from TestNG to JUnit. There
> was a PR[1] that migrated some of the integration tests to JUnit. I
> wound up rejecting the PR and keeping the integration tests in TestNG
> because it is not clear to me how JUnit supports some of the features
> that we have used and will continue to use with TestNG. Dependent
> methods is a good example.

This seems to imply that we use Dependent methods in rhq-metrics 
already. Sorry, I am not aware of that. Could you please point me to 
tests using them?

> For the metrics aggregation tests in RHQ,

Or you mean the old RHQ project here?

> there are tests for computing the 1 hr metrics, and there are tests for
> computing the 6 hr metrics. The 6 hr metrics test depends on the 1 hr
> metrics test.


[Assuming that the following is a required feature distinct from 
dependent tests]

> In JUnit the set up/tear down methods are considered part
> of the test fixture. In TestNG, they are configuration methods. This is
> a big difference because if a configuration method fails, then
> subsequent tests are skipped. This makes a lot of sense for integration
> tests. If I cannot create a connection to the database for example, then
> it is pointless to run the tests which rely on that connection.

"The JUnit way is to do this at runtime is org.junit.Assume." 
http://stackoverflow.com/a/1689309 This is exactly what we need, is it not?

> My understanding is that there were a couple reasons for the change - 1)
> Arquillian has better support for JUnit than for TestNG and 2) JUnit is
> more up to date than earlier versions like 3.x (e.g., annotation
> driven). hawkular-metrics does not use Arquillian so I do not care about
> 1) and 2) is not much of a reason. Unless JUnit provides similar
> capabilities, I prefer to keep integration/functional tests in TestNG
> for hawkular-metrics.

So you propose to remove jUnit from metrics altogether, right?

There is also reason 3) for introducing metrics: more mainstream, no 
need to learn new testing framework for more devs, having more tests and 
better coverage as a result.

 > Unless JUnit provides similar capabilities

Yes, we should state clearly, what is required but missing in jUnit. Now 
it seems that only dependent tests could fall into this category (but I 
am still not convinced that we really need them). Can anybody name other 
important features missing from jUnit?

Thanks,

Peter


> [1] https://github.com/rhq-project/rhq-metrics/pull/101
>
>
> - John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>