You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com> on 2018/04/20 05:09:53 UTC
Ant JUnit tests
I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
"IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent on
ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be prevented
from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps there might be a
suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or some other location that
might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
Thanks, Gintas
Re: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com>.
2018-04-20 17:34 GMT+00:00 Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@hibnet.org>:
>
> > Le 20 avr. 2018 à 18:48, Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >
> > 2018-04-20 15:26 GMT+00:00 Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org
> <ma...@hibnet.org>>:
> >
> >>> Le 20 avr. 2018 à 07:09, Gintautas Grigelionis <
> g.grigelionis@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
> >>> "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent on
> >>> ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be
> prevented
> >>> from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps there might
> be a
> >>> suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or some other location
> that
> >>> might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
> >>
> >> Rather than being skipped, it would prefer that such tests fail. I would
> >> assume that the test being skipped are only the tests that I cannot run,
> >> like the one testing a special feature of Windows while I am on MacOS.
> If
> >> it is just about an incorrect configuration of my IDE, I would want to
> be
> >> clearly notified that I can do something to run the tests, rather than
> >> silently skipping such tests. Because in the end I would want to run
> such
> >> tests.
> >
> >
> > I think I was clear that assumptions are not silent; here's an example of
> > assumptions from Ant build log
> >
> > Testsuite: org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest
> > Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 3, Time elapsed: 0,01 sec
> >
> > Testcase: java10IsDetectedProperly(org.apache.tools.ant.util.
> JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
> > got: <false>, expected: is <true>
> > Testcase: testGetExecutableWindows(org.apache.tools.ant.util.
> JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
> > Test only runs on windows
> > Testcase: testGetExecutableNetware(org.apache.tools.ant.util.
> JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
> > Test only runs on netware
> >
> > The first SKIPPED line is emitted by a messageless assumption
> >
> > assumeTrue("10".equals(System.getProperty("java.
> specification.version")));
> >
> > Now, I don't see a point why a system property "ant.home" should be
> treated
> > differently from a system property "java.specification.version ».
>
> The property ‘ant.home’ is about how the test runner is setup, which is
> controlled by the end user.
> The other one is about which jvm is running. The end user can certainly
> change it, but he is then shooting himself in the foot.
>
> The ‘ant.home’ is not an unchangeable property like the jvm or the OS.
>
> > An
> > assumption should inform you that the test won't run unless the property
> is
> > set, and that's what you wanted: a notification that you can (and must)
> do
> > something to run the test.
>
> I still need to make the distinction between the thing I cannot change to
> make the test pass, like the OS, and the things that I can and should fix
> in the config of my IDE.
Fine, let's use assertions then. I suppose I should start with
ModifiedSelectorTest which currently uses assumptions.
Gintas
Re: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@hibnet.org>.
> Le 20 avr. 2018 à 18:48, Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> 2018-04-20 15:26 GMT+00:00 Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org <ma...@hibnet.org>>:
>
>>> Le 20 avr. 2018 à 07:09, Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
>>> "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent on
>>> ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be prevented
>>> from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps there might be a
>>> suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or some other location that
>>> might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
>>
>> Rather than being skipped, it would prefer that such tests fail. I would
>> assume that the test being skipped are only the tests that I cannot run,
>> like the one testing a special feature of Windows while I am on MacOS. If
>> it is just about an incorrect configuration of my IDE, I would want to be
>> clearly notified that I can do something to run the tests, rather than
>> silently skipping such tests. Because in the end I would want to run such
>> tests.
>
>
> I think I was clear that assumptions are not silent; here's an example of
> assumptions from Ant build log
>
> Testsuite: org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest
> Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 3, Time elapsed: 0,01 sec
>
> Testcase: java10IsDetectedProperly(org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
> got: <false>, expected: is <true>
> Testcase: testGetExecutableWindows(org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
> Test only runs on windows
> Testcase: testGetExecutableNetware(org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
> Test only runs on netware
>
> The first SKIPPED line is emitted by a messageless assumption
>
> assumeTrue("10".equals(System.getProperty("java.specification.version")));
>
> Now, I don't see a point why a system property "ant.home" should be treated
> differently from a system property "java.specification.version ».
The property ‘ant.home’ is about how the test runner is setup, which is controlled by the end user.
The other one is about which jvm is running. The end user can certainly change it, but he is then shooting himself in the foot.
The ‘ant.home’ is not an unchangeable property like the jvm or the OS.
> An
> assumption should inform you that the test won't run unless the property is
> set, and that's what you wanted: a notification that you can (and must) do
> something to run the test.
I still need to make the distinction between the thing I cannot change to make the test pass, like the OS, and the things that I can and should fix in the config of my IDE.
Nicolas
Re: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com>.
2018-04-20 15:26 GMT+00:00 Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@hibnet.org>:
> > Le 20 avr. 2018 à 07:09, Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >
> > I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
> > "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent on
> > ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be prevented
> > from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps there might be a
> > suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or some other location that
> > might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
>
> Rather than being skipped, it would prefer that such tests fail. I would
> assume that the test being skipped are only the tests that I cannot run,
> like the one testing a special feature of Windows while I am on MacOS. If
> it is just about an incorrect configuration of my IDE, I would want to be
> clearly notified that I can do something to run the tests, rather than
> silently skipping such tests. Because in the end I would want to run such
> tests.
I think I was clear that assumptions are not silent; here's an example of
assumptions from Ant build log
Testsuite: org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest
Tests run: 6, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 3, Time elapsed: 0,01 sec
Testcase: java10IsDetectedProperly(org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
got: <false>, expected: is <true>
Testcase: testGetExecutableWindows(org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
Test only runs on windows
Testcase: testGetExecutableNetware(org.apache.tools.ant.util.JavaEnvUtilsTest):SKIPPED:
Test only runs on netware
The first SKIPPED line is emitted by a messageless assumption
assumeTrue("10".equals(System.getProperty("java.specification.version")));
Now, I don't see a point why a system property "ant.home" should be treated
differently from a system property "java.specification.version". An
assumption should inform you that the test won't run unless the property is
set, and that's what you wanted: a notification that you can (and must) do
something to run the test.
Gintas
Re: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@hibnet.org>.
> Le 20 avr. 2018 à 07:09, Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
> "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent on
> ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be prevented
> from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps there might be a
> suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or some other location that
> might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
Rather than being skipped, it would prefer that such tests fail. I would assume that the test being skipped are only the tests that I cannot run, like the one testing a special feature of Windows while I am on MacOS. If it is just about an incorrect configuration of my IDE, I would want to be clearly notified that I can do something to run the tests, rather than silently skipping such tests. Because in the end I would want to run such tests.
Nicolas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com>.
That's what an assumption is for -- checking for preconditions.
Lack of preconditions does not mean the test should fail, it should not be
executed at all in order to avoid false negatives.
As I said, I will make assumptions explicit.
My question was, should I provide more information, like, what is the a
suitable value of ant.home?
Thanks, Gintas
2018-04-20 13:16 GMT+00:00 Jan Matèrne (jhm) <ap...@materne.de>:
> Why not an assert with a meaningful message to test if the property is set?
>
> Jan
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Gintautas Grigelionis [mailto:g.grigelionis@gmail.com]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2018 10:42
> > An: Ant Developers List
> > Betreff: Re: Ant JUnit tests
> >
> > Assumption is a "friendly reminder" -- the test is does not run unless
> > the assumption is valid; the assumption provides an explanation of what
> > is missing. My question was about how friendly we should be.
> >
> > Gintas
> >
> > 2018-04-20 7:14 GMT+02:00 Jaikiran Pai <ja...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Like discussed in the other thread, I don't understand what's wrong
> > > with setting the expected properties in the IDE itself (like the
> > "ant.home").
> > > IDEs provide these configurations/settings for reasons like these.
> > > What would it achieve by virtually disabling these tests, in IDE, by
> > > adding those assumptions?
> > >
> > > -Jaikiran
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20/04/18 10:39 AM, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
> > >> "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent
> > on
> > >> ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be
> > >> prevented from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps
> > >> there might be a suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or
> > >> some other location that might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, Gintas
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional
> > > commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
> > >
> > >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
AW: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by "Jan Matèrne (jhm)" <ap...@materne.de>.
Why not an assert with a meaningful message to test if the property is set?
Jan
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Gintautas Grigelionis [mailto:g.grigelionis@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2018 10:42
> An: Ant Developers List
> Betreff: Re: Ant JUnit tests
>
> Assumption is a "friendly reminder" -- the test is does not run unless
> the assumption is valid; the assumption provides an explanation of what
> is missing. My question was about how friendly we should be.
>
> Gintas
>
> 2018-04-20 7:14 GMT+02:00 Jaikiran Pai <ja...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Like discussed in the other thread, I don't understand what's wrong
> > with setting the expected properties in the IDE itself (like the
> "ant.home").
> > IDEs provide these configurations/settings for reasons like these.
> > What would it achieve by virtually disabling these tests, in IDE, by
> > adding those assumptions?
> >
> > -Jaikiran
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20/04/18 10:39 AM, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> >
> >> I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
> >> "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent
> on
> >> ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be
> >> prevented from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps
> >> there might be a suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or
> >> some other location that might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
> >>
> >> Thanks, Gintas
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional
> > commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by Gintautas Grigelionis <g....@gmail.com>.
Assumption is a "friendly reminder" -- the test is does not run unless the
assumption is valid; the assumption provides an explanation of what is
missing. My question was about how friendly we should be.
Gintas
2018-04-20 7:14 GMT+02:00 Jaikiran Pai <ja...@gmail.com>:
> Like discussed in the other thread, I don't understand what's wrong with
> setting the expected properties in the IDE itself (like the "ant.home").
> IDEs provide these configurations/settings for reasons like these. What
> would it achieve by virtually disabling these tests, in IDE, by adding
> those assumptions?
>
> -Jaikiran
>
>
>
> On 20/04/18 10:39 AM, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>
>> I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
>> "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent on
>> ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be prevented
>> from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps there might be a
>> suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or some other location that
>> might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
>>
>> Thanks, Gintas
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
Re: Ant JUnit tests
Posted by Jaikiran Pai <ja...@gmail.com>.
Like discussed in the other thread, I don't understand what's wrong with
setting the expected properties in the IDE itself (like the "ant.home").
IDEs provide these configurations/settings for reasons like these. What
would it achieve by virtually disabling these tests, in IDE, by adding
those assumptions?
-Jaikiran
On 20/04/18 10:39 AM, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> I am refactoring Ant JUnit tests with a goal to make them more
> "IDE-friendly". I found several tests that are implictly dependent on
> ant.home property being set. In these cases, the test should be prevented
> from execution by adding an assumption; however, perhaps there might be a
> suitable default, like basedir + "/bootstrap" or some other location that
> might be suggested in, say, javadoc?
>
> Thanks, Gintas
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org