Hi,
comments inlined
Le 1/27/2016 11:53 AM, Mickael Istria a
écrit :
On 01/27/2016 11:16 AM, Aurelien
Pupier wrote:
About
using fragments, the only drawback I'm aware of is that one
cannot add a dependency to a fragment from their plugin. So it's
not possible for other tests to reuse some logic that is inside
a fragment. In the spirit of "treating tests as 1st class
citizen", I believe it's generally better to allow composition
of test bundles and to make them regular bundles.
If reusable, the logic can be moved to a dedicated utility test
plugin.
Yes, but it requires an effort in moving the code to the right
plugin or turning fragment into a bundle everytime one identifies
something to reuse; whereas using bundles only doesn't require any
effort from the "producer" side.
Considering this code as first citizen, it seems to me an acceptable
effort ;-)
On
the other hand, some integration tests should be able to detect
that.
That would require writing some additional integration tests,
whereas the current approach to run "unit" tests inside a
workbench provide that verification without additional thing to
write.
The QE people could tell you their opinion on what's more
important between fast tests, and longer tests that are closer
from production.
I guess it all depends, as always: we could imagine the unit
test running in plain Java to verify only their logic, but it
shouldn't become a replacement to some integration test to
verify that the logic also works in the right context.
Not planned to have them as a replacement. I already created the
structure to write also higher integration tests.
If, during automated tests/build, you run both unit tests and then
start a workbench to run integration tests, then you pay the price
of the workbench startup anyway. So why not running those unit
tests in the workbench?
Because my issue is not the build. It is my development environment.
When
running locally, I may want to run only unit tests first.
Without launching the OSGi platform it will be faster. It will
also allow to use some tools such as Infinitest to have
continuous feedback while developing.
I don't know much of Infinitest, but I believe it doesn't rely on
how Maven runs tests. Eclipse already provide the ability to run a
test class in a bundle in plain Java without starting the
workbench; it's "Run As > JUnit Test" instead of "Run As >
JUnit Plugin Test". I guess Infinitest can rely on that, can't it?
Yes Infinitest can rely on it but it means that you are able to
launch as "JUnit test" and so not starting the workbench.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong to change that; I'm
more wonderint how much profitable is it, what changing test
structure would provide better than the current one does. The
Infinitest story seems the only one "worth it" IMO, and it doesn't
seem to be correlated to tycho-surefire vs maven-surefire.
InfiniTest or only launching test of a single plugin very fast (less
than a second versus tens seconds) it is the difference between
keeping concentrated on the task and have our brain switching to
another idea.
It seems to me that only tests launched with surefire will be able
and ensured - to run with Junit test.
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
--
Aurelien Pupier
Senior Software Engineer in JBoss Fuse Tooling Team
@apupier