[jboss-dev] JUnit should not attempt to instantiate/run unit test classes defined as abstract, thoughts?

[Galder Zamarreno]

Brian Stansberry wrote:
> I see you noticed testsuite failures from your abstract class :)

Actually, Dimitris did. I'll keep a closer look on hudson going forward.

> 
> Oh, sorry; I saw that on trunk over the weekend and tweaked the 
> cluster-excludes filter to ensure the testsuite didn't try to run stuff 
> in that package (which was a minor tweak I needed to make anyway). I 
> didn't think about how you were porting this all over the place; should 
> have given you a heads-up. My bad. :(

No worries :). In 4.2.x, we haven't got *cfg and non cfg separation for 
test runs, but that's Ok. I'll rename the abstract class and it'll all 
be resolved.

<rant>
I don't see why I should be doing it though. IMO, JUnit is wrong, not me :).
</rant>

> 
> Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Let's say you define an abstract unit test class which is contains 
>> test methods that are run for concrete implementations, i.e.:
>>
>> class abstract MyAbstractTestCase
>> {
>>   void test000(){}
>>   void test001(){}
>> }
>>
>> class YourConcreteTestCase extends MyAbstractTestCase
>> {}
>>
>> class HisConcreteTestCase extends MyAbstractTestCase
>> {}
>>
>> If you have a filter to run tests ending in *TestCase, JUnit will try 
>> to run all 3 classes: MyAbstractTestCase, YourConcreteTestCase, 
>> HisConcreteTestCase, i.e.
>>
>> test000 for MyAbstractTestCase
>> test001 for MyAbstractTestCase
>>
>> test000 for YourConcreteTestCase
>> test001 for YourConcreteTestCase
>>
>> test000 for HisConcreteTestCase
>> test001 for HisConcreteTestCase
>>
>> An abstract class is, amongst other things, a class that can't be 
>> instantiated. Why does JUnit attempt to (doing something funky, that's 
>> for sure) go against the Java rules and try to execute an abstract 
>> unit test class? I'd expect YourConcreteTestCase and 
>> HisConcreteTestCase to be executed as they're concrete implementations.
>>
>> Of couse, this can easily be avoided by renaming the Abstract class to 
>> something that does not end in *TestCase, but why should I? I defined 
>> it as abstract, do not instantiate it :)
>>
>> Cheers,
> 

-- 
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer
JBoss, a division of Red Hat