7:33 a.m.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Bevenius
<daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com>wrote:
I personally don't have a problem with mixing languages when it
comes to
testing.
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.
that is an interesting comment. I guess Java does (perhaps) lower the bar.
But... if there is something different (e.g. Spock/Groovy) it must have
been choosen for a specific reason. I think that would also increase my
interest. I think Dan has some very good thought there.
I've not used Spock and would be interested in trying it to see
if there
is an advantage in using it.
On 16 July 2013 14:12, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
> I agree with Matthias and I'll summarize in one sentence about AGSEC. I
> won't mix up any other language with Java, period.
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > Hi Karel,
> >
> > thanks for starting the thread and summarizing all the facts/statements
> > from the previous discussion!
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com
> > <mailto:kpiwko@redhat.com>> 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
> >
> >
> > that's the 'concerns' I share as well: it a little burden on
getting
> > back contributions, since the source of the server is java.
> >
> >
> > Also, what would happen if others decide let's add Ruby and also Perl
> > for some sort of tests? That would mean a language nightmare, IMO :)
> >
> >
> > 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 <mailto:aerogear-dev@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(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> --
> abstractj
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf