[forge-dev] XmlUnit on Scaffold test cases

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

Ah! Whoops, yes, that is actually a very good idea :) Thanks Dan, it's late
and I'm tired :p

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's not miss the original point that George makes, which is that
> comparing the structure may make less fragile tests than comparing the raw
> HTML. I tend to agree, unless there is something very important about
> maintaining the whitespace. Even then, a structure comparison tool should
> be able to accommodate that rule.
>
> -Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III <
> lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I'm not sure there's a great way around this aside from a more
>> black-box functional approach, but even that might not be getting as
>> fine-grained as some of these tests need to be. With greater test coverage,
>> I think it could be replaced, however.
>>
>> ~Lincoln
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Richard Kennard <
>> richard at kennardconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for this.
>>>
>>> However note there are different levels of tests. Classes like
>>> FacesScaffoldScenarioTest are only meant to test very small, very specific
>>> things. Basically
>>> regression testing. Classes like FacesScaffoldWeatherTest are also small
>>> and specific.
>>>
>>> The real testing is done using Arquillian (like
>>> FacesScaffoldPetClinicClient and FacesScaffoldShoppingClient). Because
>>> whilst your point about 'if you
>>> place a line break in a generated XHTML... it breaks the whole test' is
>>> very valid, even with XmlUnit you are vulnerable to 'if you place an extra
>>> XML
>>> element in a generated XHTML... it breaks the whole test'.
>>>
>>> Testing through Arquillian is the only way to be really sure the
>>> generated app actually works, IMHO. Because you are testing it the way the
>>> user would.
>>>
>>> However, definitely +1 for using XmlUnit, as far as that goes.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>> On 12/06/2012 12:09 PM, George Gastaldi wrote:
>>> > Hello all,
>>> >
>>> > I noticed that most of our scaffold unit tests are kinda hard to
>>> > maintain. specially because they compare XHTML as strings, instead of
>>> > the structure as a whole.
>>> > This implies that if you place a line break in a generated XHTML for
>>> > example, it breaks the whole test as well.
>>> > What about if we refactor these tests to use XmlUnit instead ?
>>> > (http://xmlunit.sourceforge.net/)
>>> > This way we could compare the structure without the ugly plain string
>>> > comparison, WDYT ?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards,,
>>> > George Gastaldi
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > forge-dev mailing list
>>> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> forge-dev mailing list
>>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lincoln Baxter, III
>> http://ocpsoft.org
>> "Simpler is better."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Allen
> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>


-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120613/9861d57e/attachment.html