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

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've not used Spock and would be interested in trying it to see if there is an advantage in using it.

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'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

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

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

On 07/16/2013 07:09 AM, 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&gt; 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 > Not really, if you are using Maven as your project format then the IDEs really don't have to do any work. The latest NetBeans has not craptacular Groovy out of the box as well. - 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 > Why is this a concern? - Raises bar for newcomers willing to write tests > Other than ending a FooTest in .groovy or .java how does it actually raise the bar?

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 :) We reject the PR.

Groovy is a much "easier" language than Java. Sure it will allow people to write some particularly hellish code, but we just punt those PRs. Punting the PR is also the answer for what happens if someone adds Ruby or Perl. > > Thank you for additional advantages, concerns or proving some of those > are not > valid. > Pros of Groovy: * Built in examples of how to call the code from a Groovy based application. * It gives us a carrot to hang in front of community members who might not want to write Java or who want to stretch their polyglot legs. Cons of Groovy: * Language is slippery. Lots of ways to do something which could be quite abstract or opaque. * If we use indy then we are committing to Java 7+ * It does require us to make some annoying trade offs w.r.t simplicty of our build. * One more point of failure in a build > Karel > _______________________________________________ > 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 listaerogear-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://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

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. 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.

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

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.

> > 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

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

On 07/19/2013 03:27 AM, Karel Piwko wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:58:01 +0200 > Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko@redhat.com<javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:18:40 -0300 >>> Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me <javascript:;>> 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. +1 >> >> 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 <javascript:;> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <javascript:;> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <javascript:;> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <javascript:;> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev