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

[Daniel Bevenius]

+1

Den fredagen den 19:e juli 2013 skrev Summers Pittman:

> On 07/19/2013 03:27 AM, Karel Piwko wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:58:01 +0200
> > Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at redhat.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:18:40 -0300
> >>> Douglas Campos <qmx at 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 at lists.jboss.org <javascript:;>
> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> aerogear-dev mailing list
> >>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <javascript:;>
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <javascript:;>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130719/3a0fcc1e/attachment.html