[forge-dev] XmlUnit on Scaffold test cases

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

I get it now :p

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III <
lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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."
>



-- 
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/20120613/1a8884d6/attachment-0001.html