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

I'm thinking like Dan using Spock will not raise the bar for contributors, it will make it more attractive. Developers by essence are curious/eager to learn. I'm new to Spock too. When looking at integration test framework for iOs I was surprised to see that most fwk were not in Objective-C. UI automation from Apple is using JavaScript. Frank is integrated nicely with ruby and Cucumber.

when new to a project test is actually not the first thing you look at. I look at test and unit test if I'm looking for documentation. my 2 cents Corinne. On Jul 16, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On Jul 16, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Bevenius < daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. > I know for me when i was first looking at a library to use when i was a beginner, i never looked at the tests. in fact, i don't do that know either ;) 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&gt; 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 _______________________________________________ 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