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

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:58:01 +0200 Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:18:40 -0300 > > Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me&gt; 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.

> > > 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(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev