You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@tapestry.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2018/02/18 19:21:01 UTC
svn commit: r1025566 [2/2] - in /websites/production/tapestry/content:
cache/main.pageCache development-dashboard.html integration-testing.html
ioc.html tapestry-ioc-modules.html tapestry-ioc-overview.html
unit-testing-pages-or-components.html
Modified: websites/production/tapestry/content/tapestry-ioc-overview.html
==============================================================================
--- websites/production/tapestry/content/tapestry-ioc-overview.html (original)
+++ websites/production/tapestry/content/tapestry-ioc-overview.html Sun Feb 18 19:21:00 2018
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
</div>
<div id="content">
- <div id="ConfluenceContent"><p>Even today, with the overwhelming success of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.springframework.org" rel="nofollow">Spring</a> and the rise of smaller, simpler approaches to building applications (in contrast to the heavyweight EJB 2.0 approach), many people still have trouble wrapping their heads around Inversion of Control.</p><p>Really understanding IoC is a new step for many developers. If you can remember back to when you made the transition from procedural programming (in C, or BASIC) to object oriented programming, you might remember the point where you "got it". The point where it made sense to have methods on objects, and data inside objects.</p><p>Inversion of Control builds upon those ideas. The goal is to make code more robust (that is, with fewer errors), more reusable and much easier to test.</p><p>Prior to IoC approaches, most developers were used to a more <em>monolithic</em> design, with a few core objects and a
<code>main()</code> method somewhere that starts the ball rolling. <code>main()</code> instantiates the first couple of classes, and those classes end up instantiating and using all the other classes in the system.</p><p>That's an <em>unmanaged</em> system. Most desktop applications are unmanaged, so it's a very familiar pattern, and easy to get your head around.</p><p>By contrast, web applications are a <em>managed</em> environment. You don't write a main(), you don't control startup. You <em>configure</em> the Servlet API to tell it about your servlet classes to be instantiated, and their life cycle is totally controlled by the servlet container.</p><p>Inversion of Control is just a more general application of this approach. The container is ultimately responsible for instantiating and configuring the objects you tell it about, and running their entire life cycle of those objects.</p><p>Web applications are more complicated to write than monolithic applications, largely because o
f <em>multithreading</em>. Your code will be servicing many different users simultaneously across many different threads. This tends to complicate the code you write, since some fundamental aspects of object oriented development get called into question: in particular, the use of <em>internal state</em> (values stored inside instance variables), since in a multithreaded environment, that's no longer the safe place it is in traditional development. Shared objects plus internal state plus multiple threads equals an broken, unpredictable application.</p><p>Frameworks such as Tapestry – both the IoC container, and the web framework itself – exist to help.</p><p>When thinking in terms of IoC, <strong>small is beautiful</strong>. What does that mean? It means small classes and small methods are easier to code than large ones. At one extreme, we have servlets circa 1997 (and Visual Basic before that) with methods a thousand lines long, and no distinction between business logic
and view logic. Everything mixed together into an untestable jumble.</p><p>At the other extreme is IoC: small objects, each with a specific purpose, collaborating with other small objects.</p><p>Using unit tests, in collaboration with tools such as <a class="external-link" href="http://easymock.org/" rel="nofollow">EasyMock</a>, you can have a code base that is easy to maintain, easy to extend, and easy to test. And by factoring out a lot of <em>plumbing</em> code, your code base will not only be easier to work with, it will be smaller.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-LivingontheFrontier">Living on the Frontier</h2><p>Coding applications the traditional way is like being a homesteader on the American frontier in the 1800's. You're responsible for every aspect of your house: every board, every nail, every stick of furniture is something you personally created. There <em>is</em> a great comfort in total self reliance. Even if your house is small, the windows are a bit drafty or the fl
oorboards creak a little, you know exactly <em>why</em> things are not-quite perfect.</p><p>Flash forward to modern cities or modern suburbia and it's a whole different story. Houses are built to specification from design plans, made from common materials, by many specializing tradespeople. Construction codes dictate how plumbing, wiring and framing should be performed. A home-owner may not even know how to drive a nail, but can still take comfort in draft-free windows, solid floors and working plumbing.</p><p>To extend the metaphor, a house in a town is not alone and self-reliant the way a frontier house is. The town house is situated on a street, in a neighborhood, within a town. The town provides services (utilities, police, fire control, streets and sewers) to houses in a uniform way. Each house just needs to connect up to those services.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-TheWorldoftheContainer">The World of the Container</h2><p>So the IoC container is the "town" and in the world o
f the IoC container, everything has a name, a place, and a relationship to everything else in the container. Tapestry calls this world "The Registry".</p><p><span class="confluence-embedded-file-wrapper"><img class="confluence-embedded-image confluence-external-resource" src="https://cwiki-test.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/23338486/ioc-overview.png?version=1&modificationDate=1290980234000&api=v2" data-image-src="https://cwiki-test.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/23338486/ioc-overview.png?version=1&modificationDate=1290980234000&api=v2"></span></p><p>Here we're seeing a few services from the built-in Tapestry IoC module, and a few of the services from the Tapestry web framework module. In fact, there are over 100 services, all interrelated, in the Registry ... and that's before you add your own to the mix. The IoC Registry treats all the services uniformly, regardless of whether they are part of Tapestry, or part of your application, or part o
f an add-on library.</p><p>Tapestry IoC's job is to make all of these services available to each other, and to the outside world. The outside world could be a standalone application, or it could be an application built on top of the Tapestry web framework.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-ServiceLifeCycle">Service Life Cycle</h2><p>Tapestry services are <em>lazy</em>, which means they are not fully instantiated until they are absolutely needed. Often, what looks like a service is really a proxy object ... the first time any method of the proxy is invoked, the actual service is instantiated and initialized (Tapestry uses the term <em>realized</em> for this process). Of course, this is all absolutely thread-safe.</p><p>Initially a service is <em>defined</em>, meaning some module has defined the service. Later, the service will be <em>virtual</em>, meaning a proxy has been created. This occurs most often because some other service <em>depends</em> on it, but hasn't gotten around to invok
ing methods on it. Finally, a service that is ready to use is <em>realized</em>. What's nice is that your code neither knows nor cares about the life cycle of the service, because of the magic of the proxy.</p><p>In fact, when a Tapestry web application starts up, before it services its first request, only about 20% of the services have been realized; the remainder are defined or virtual.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-Classvs.Service">Class vs. Service</h2><p>A Tapestry service is more than just a class. First of all, it is a combination of an <em>interface</em> that defines the operations of the service, and an <em>implementation class</em> that implements the interface.</p><p>Why this extra division? Having a service interface is what lets Tapestry create proxies and perform other operations. It's also a very good practice to code to an interface, rather than a specific implementation. You'll often be surprised at the kinds of things you can accomplish by substituting one impleme
ntation for another.</p><p>Tapestry is also very aware that a service will have dependencies on other services. It may also have other needs ... for example, in Tapestry IoC, the container provides services with access to Loggers.</p><p>Tapestry IoC also has support for other configuration that may be provided to services when they are realized.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-DependencyInjection">Dependency Injection</h2><p>Main Article: <a href="tapestry-ioc-overview.html">Tapestry IoC Overview</a></p><div class="aui-label" style="float:right" title="Related Articles">
+ <div id="ConfluenceContent"><p>Even today, with the overwhelming success of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.springframework.org" rel="nofollow">Spring</a> and the rise of smaller, simpler approaches to building applications (in contrast to the heavyweight EJB 2.0 approach), many people still have trouble wrapping their heads around Inversion of Control.</p><p>Really understanding IoC is a new step for many developers. If you can remember back to when you made the transition from procedural programming (in C, or BASIC) to object oriented programming, you might remember the point where you "got it". The point where it made sense to have methods on objects, and data inside objects.</p><p>Inversion of Control builds upon those ideas. The goal is to make code more robust (that is, with fewer errors), more reusable and much easier to test.</p><p>Prior to IoC approaches, most developers were used to a more <em>monolithic</em> design, with a few core objects and a
<code>main()</code> method somewhere that starts the ball rolling. <code>main()</code> instantiates the first couple of classes, and those classes end up instantiating and using all the other classes in the system.</p><p>That's an <em>unmanaged</em> system. Most desktop applications are unmanaged, so it's a very familiar pattern, and easy to get your head around.</p><p>By contrast, web applications are a <em>managed</em> environment. You don't write a main(), you don't control startup. You <em>configure</em> the Servlet API to tell it about your servlet classes to be instantiated, and their life cycle is totally controlled by the servlet container.</p><p>Inversion of Control is just a more general application of this approach. The container is ultimately responsible for instantiating and configuring the objects you tell it about, and running their entire life cycle of those objects.</p><p>Web applications are more complicated to write than monolithic applications, largely because o
f <em>multithreading</em>. Your code will be servicing many different users simultaneously across many different threads. This tends to complicate the code you write, since some fundamental aspects of object oriented development get called into question: in particular, the use of <em>internal state</em> (values stored inside instance variables), since in a multithreaded environment, that's no longer the safe place it is in traditional development. Shared objects plus internal state plus multiple threads equals an broken, unpredictable application.</p><p>Frameworks such as Tapestry – both the IoC container, and the web framework itself – exist to help.</p><p>When thinking in terms of IoC, <strong>small is beautiful</strong>. What does that mean? It means small classes and small methods are easier to code than large ones. At one extreme, we have servlets circa 1997 (and Visual Basic before that) with methods a thousand lines long, and no distinction between business logic
and view logic. Everything mixed together into an untestable jumble.</p><p>At the other extreme is IoC: small objects, each with a specific purpose, collaborating with other small objects.</p><p>Using unit tests, in collaboration with tools such as <a class="external-link" href="http://easymock.org/" rel="nofollow">EasyMock</a>, you can have a code base that is easy to maintain, easy to extend, and easy to test. And by factoring out a lot of <em>plumbing</em> code, your code base will not only be easier to work with, it will be smaller.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-LivingontheFrontier">Living on the Frontier</h2><p>Coding applications the traditional way is like being a homesteader on the American frontier in the 1800's. You're responsible for every aspect of your house: every board, every nail, every stick of furniture is something you personally created. There <em>is</em> a great comfort in total self reliance. Even if your house is small, the windows are a bit drafty or the fl
oorboards creak a little, you know exactly <em>why</em> things are not-quite perfect.</p><p>Flash forward to modern cities or modern suburbia and it's a whole different story. Houses are built to specification from design plans, made from common materials, by many specializing tradespeople. Construction codes dictate how plumbing, wiring and framing should be performed. A home-owner may not even know how to drive a nail, but can still take comfort in draft-free windows, solid floors and working plumbing.</p><p>To extend the metaphor, a house in a town is not alone and self-reliant the way a frontier house is. The town house is situated on a street, in a neighborhood, within a town. The town provides services (utilities, police, fire control, streets and sewers) to houses in a uniform way. Each house just needs to connect up to those services.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-TheWorldoftheContainer">The World of the Container</h2><p>So the IoC container is the "town" and in the world o
f the IoC container, everything has a name, a place, and a relationship to everything else in the container. Tapestry calls this world "The Registry".</p><p><span class="confluence-embedded-file-wrapper"><img class="confluence-embedded-image confluence-external-resource" src="https://cwiki-test.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/23338486/ioc-overview.png?version=1&modificationDate=1290980234000&api=v2" data-image-src="https://cwiki-test.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/23338486/ioc-overview.png?version=1&modificationDate=1290980234000&api=v2"></span></p><p>Here we're seeing a few services from the built-in Tapestry IoC module, and a few of the services from the Tapestry web framework module. In fact, there are over 100 services, all interrelated, in the Registry ... and that's before you add your own to the mix. The IoC Registry treats all the services uniformly, regardless of whether they are part of Tapestry, or part of your application, or part o
f an add-on library.</p><p>Tapestry IoC's job is to make all of these services available to each other, and to the outside world. The outside world could be a standalone application, or it could be an application built on top of the Tapestry web framework.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-ServiceLifeCycle">Service Life Cycle</h2><p>Tapestry services are <em>lazy</em>, which means they are not fully instantiated until they are absolutely needed. Often, what looks like a service is really a proxy object ... the first time any method of the proxy is invoked, the actual service is instantiated and initialized (Tapestry uses the term <em>realized</em> for this process). Of course, this is all absolutely thread-safe.</p><p>Initially a service is <em>defined</em>, meaning some module has defined the service. Later, the service will be <em>virtual</em>, meaning a proxy has been created. This occurs most often because some other service <em>depends</em> on it, but hasn't gotten around to invok
ing methods on it. Finally, a service that is ready to use is <em>realized</em>. What's nice is that your code neither knows nor cares about the life cycle of the service, because of the magic of the proxy.</p><p>In fact, when a Tapestry web application starts up, before it services its first request, only about 20% of the services have been realized; the remainder are defined or virtual.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-Classvs.Service">Class vs. Service</h2><p>A Tapestry service is more than just a class. First of all, it is a combination of an <em>interface</em> that defines the operations of the service, and an <em>implementation class</em> that implements the interface.</p><p>Why this extra division? Having a service interface is what lets Tapestry create proxies and perform other operations. It's also a very good practice to code to an interface, rather than a specific implementation. You'll often be surprised at the kinds of things you can accomplish by substituting one impleme
ntation for another.</p><p>Tapestry is also very aware that a service will have dependencies on other services. It may also have other needs ... for example, in Tapestry IoC, the container provides services with access to Loggers.</p><p>Tapestry IoC also has support for other configuration that may be provided to services when they are realized.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-DependencyInjection">Dependency Injection</h2><p>Main Article: <a href="injection.html">Injection</a></p><div class="aui-label" style="float:right" title="Related Articles">
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@
}
}
</pre>
-</div></div><p>Again, we've omitted a few details related to the database the TableMetricProducer will point at (in fact, Tapestry IoC provides a lot of support for configuration of this type as well, which is yet another concern).</p><p>The MonitorModule class is a Tapestry IoC module: a class that defines and configures services.</p><p>The bind() method is the principle way that services are made known to the Registry: here we're binding a service interface to a service implementation. QueueWriter we've discussed already, and MetricScheduler is a service that is responsible for determining when MetricProducer instances run.</p><p>The contributeMetricScheduler() method allows the module to <em>contribute</em> into the MetricProducer service's <em>configuration</em>. More testability: the MetricProducer isn't tied to a pre-set list of producers, instead it will have a Collection<MetricProducer> injected into its constructor. Thus, when we're coding the MetricProducerImpl class
, we can test it against mock implementations of MetricProducer.</p><p>The QueueWriter service is injected into the contributeMetricScheduler() method. Since there's only one QueueWriter service, Tapestry IoC is able to "find" the correct service based entirely on type. If, eventually, there's more than one QueueWriter service (perhaps pointing at different JMS queues), you would use an annotation on the parameter to help Tapestry connect the parameter to the appropriate service.</p><p>Presumably, there would be a couple of other parameters to the contributeMetricScheduler() method, to inject in a database URL or connection pool (that would, in turn, be passed to TableMetricProducer).</p><p>A new TableMetricProducer instance is created and contributed in. We could contribute as many producers as we like here. Other modules could also define a contributeMetricScheduler() method and contribute their own MetricProducer instances.</p><p>Meanwhile, the QueueWriterImpl class no longer nee
ds the <code>instance</code> variable or getInstance() method, and the TableMetricProducer only needs a single constructor.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-AdvantagesofIoC:Summary">Advantages of IoC: Summary</h2><p>It would be ludicrous for us to claim that applications built without an IoC container are doomed to failure. There is overwhelming evidence that applications have been built without containers and have been perfectly successful.</p><p>What we are saying is that IoC techniques and discipline will lead to applications that are:</p><ul><li>More testable – smaller, simpler classes; coding to interfaces allows use of mock implementations</li><li>More robust – smaller, simpler classes; use of final variables; thread safety baked in</li><li>More scalable – thread safety baked in</li><li>Easier to maintain – less code, simpler classes</li><li>Easier to extend – new features are often additions (new services, new contributions) rather than changes to
existing classes</li></ul><p>What we're saying is that an IoC container allows you to work faster and smarter.</p><p>Many of these traits work together; for example, a more testable application is inherently more robust. Having a test suite makes it easier to maintain and extend your code, because its much easier to see if new features break existing ones. Simpler code plus tests also lowers the cost of entry for new developers coming on board, which allows for more developers to work efficiently on the same code base. The clean separation between interface and implementation also allows multiple developers to work on different aspects of the same code base with a lowered risk of interference and conflict.</p><p>By contrast, traditional applications, which we term <em>monolithic</em> applications, are often very difficult to test, because there are fewer classes, and each class has multiple concerns. A lack of tests makes it more difficult to add new features without breaking existi
ng features. Further, the monolithic approach more often leads to implementations being linked to other implementations, yet another hurdle standing in the way of testing.</p><p>Let's end with a metaphor.</p><p>Over a decade ago, when Java first came on the scene, it was the first mainstream language to support garbage collection. This was very controversial: the garbage collector was seen as unnecessary, and a waste of resources. Among C and C++ developers, the attitude was "Why do I need a garbage collector? If I call malloc() I can call free()."</p><p>But now, most developers would never want to go back to a non-garbage collected environment. Having the GC around makes it much easier to code in a way we find natural: many small related objects working together. It turns out that knowing when to call free() is more difficult than it sounds. The Objective-C language tried to solve this with retain counts on objects and that still lead to memory leaks when it was applied to object <
em>graphs</em> rather than object <em>trees</em>.</p><p>Roll the clock forward a decade and the common consensus has shifted considerably. Objective-C 2.0 features true garbage collection and GC libraries are available for C and C++. All scripting languages, including Ruby and Python, feature garbage collection as well. A new language <em>without</em> garbage collection is now considered an anomaly.</p><p>The point is, the life cycle of objects turns out to be far more complicated than it looks at first glance. We've come to accept that our own applications lack the ability to police their objects as they are no longer needed (they literally lack the ability to determine <em>when</em> an object is no longer needed) and the garbage collector, a kind of higher authority, takes over that job very effectively. The end result? Less code and fewer bugs. And a careful study shows that the Java memory allocator and garbage collector (the two are quite intimately tied together) is actually <
strong>more</strong> efficient than malloc() and free().</p><p>So we've come to accept that the <em>death concern</em> is better handled outside of our own code. The use of Inversion of Control is simply the flip side of that: the <em>life cycle and construction concerns</em> are also better handled by an outside authority as well: the IoC container. These concerns govern when a service is <em>realized</em> and how its dependencies and configuration are injected. As with the garbage collector, ceding these chores to the container results in less code and fewer bugs, and lets you concentrate on the things that should matter to you: your business logic, your application – and not a whole bunch of boilerplate plumbing!</p><p> </p><p></p></div>
+</div></div><p>Again, we've omitted a few details related to the database the TableMetricProducer will point at (in fact, Tapestry IoC provides a lot of support for configuration of this type as well, which is yet another concern).</p><p>The MonitorModule class is a Tapestry IoC module: a class that defines and configures services.</p><p>The bind() method is the principle way that services are made known to the Registry: here we're binding a service interface to a service implementation. QueueWriter we've discussed already, and MetricScheduler is a service that is responsible for determining when MetricProducer instances run.</p><p>The contributeMetricScheduler() method allows the module to <em>contribute</em> into the MetricProducer service's <em>configuration</em>. More testability: the MetricProducer isn't tied to a pre-set list of producers, instead it will have a Collection<MetricProducer> injected into its constructor. Thus, when we're coding the MetricProducerImpl class
, we can test it against mock implementations of MetricProducer.</p><p>The QueueWriter service is injected into the contributeMetricScheduler() method. Since there's only one QueueWriter service, Tapestry IoC is able to "find" the correct service based entirely on type. If, eventually, there's more than one QueueWriter service (perhaps pointing at different JMS queues), you would use an annotation on the parameter to help Tapestry connect the parameter to the appropriate service.</p><p>Presumably, there would be a couple of other parameters to the contributeMetricScheduler() method, to inject in a database URL or connection pool (that would, in turn, be passed to TableMetricProducer).</p><p>A new TableMetricProducer instance is created and contributed in. We could contribute as many producers as we like here. Other modules could also define a contributeMetricScheduler() method and contribute their own MetricProducer instances.</p><p>Meanwhile, the QueueWriterImpl class no longer nee
ds the <code>instance</code> variable or getInstance() method, and the TableMetricProducer only needs a single constructor.</p><h2 id="TapestryIoCOverview-AdvantagesofIoC:Summary">Advantages of IoC: Summary</h2><p>It would be ludicrous for us to claim that applications built without an IoC container are doomed to failure. There is overwhelming evidence that applications have been built without containers and have been perfectly successful.</p><p>What we are saying is that IoC techniques and discipline will lead to applications that are:</p><ul><li><strong>More testable</strong> – smaller, simpler classes; coding to interfaces allows use of mock implementations</li><li><strong>More robust</strong> – smaller, simpler classes; use of final variables; thread safety baked in</li><li><strong>More scalable</strong> – thread safety baked in</li><li><strong>Easier to maintain</strong> – less code, simpler classes</li><li><strong>Easier to extend</strong> – new f
eatures are often additions (new services, new contributions) rather than changes to existing classes</li></ul><p>What we're saying is that an IoC container allows you to work faster and smarter.</p><p>Many of these traits work together; for example, a more testable application is inherently more robust. Having a test suite makes it easier to maintain and extend your code, because its much easier to see if new features break existing ones. Simpler code plus tests also lowers the cost of entry for new developers coming on board, which allows for more developers to work efficiently on the same code base. The clean separation between interface and implementation also allows multiple developers to work on different aspects of the same code base with a lowered risk of interference and conflict.</p><p>By contrast, traditional applications, which we term <em>monolithic</em> applications, are often very difficult to test, because there are fewer classes, and each class has multiple concerns
. A lack of tests makes it more difficult to add new features without breaking existing features. Further, the monolithic approach more often leads to implementations being linked to other implementations, yet another hurdle standing in the way of testing.</p><p>Let's end with a metaphor.</p><p>Over a decade ago, when Java first came on the scene, it was the first mainstream language to support garbage collection. This was very controversial: the garbage collector was seen as unnecessary, and a waste of resources. Among C and C++ developers, the attitude was "Why do I need a garbage collector? If I call malloc() I can call free()."</p><p>But now, most developers would never want to go back to a non-garbage collected environment. Having the GC around makes it much easier to code in a way we find natural: many small related objects working together. It turns out that knowing when to call free() is more difficult than it sounds. The Objective-C language tried to solve this with retain
counts on objects and that still lead to memory leaks when it was applied to object <em>graphs</em> rather than object <em>trees</em>.</p><p>Roll the clock forward a decade and the common consensus has shifted considerably. Objective-C 2.0 features true garbage collection and GC libraries are available for C and C++. All scripting languages, including Ruby and Python, feature garbage collection as well. A new language <em>without</em> garbage collection is now considered an anomaly.</p><p>The point is, the life cycle of objects turns out to be far more complicated than it looks at first glance. We've come to accept that our own applications lack the ability to police their objects as they are no longer needed (they literally lack the ability to determine <em>when</em> an object is no longer needed) and the garbage collector, a kind of higher authority, takes over that job very effectively. The end result? Less code and fewer bugs. And a careful study shows that the Java memory alloc
ator and garbage collector (the two are quite intimately tied together) is actually <strong>more</strong> efficient than malloc() and free().</p><p>So we've come to accept that the <em>death concern</em> is better handled outside of our own code. The use of Inversion of Control is simply the flip side of that: the <em>life cycle and construction concerns</em> are also better handled by an outside authority as well: the IoC container. These concerns govern when a service is <em>realized</em> and how its dependencies and configuration are injected. As with the garbage collector, ceding these chores to the container results in less code and fewer bugs, and lets you concentrate on the things that should matter to you: your business logic, your application – and not a whole bunch of boilerplate plumbing!</p><p> </p><p></p></div>
</div>
<div class="clearer"></div>
Modified: websites/production/tapestry/content/unit-testing-pages-or-components.html
==============================================================================
--- websites/production/tapestry/content/unit-testing-pages-or-components.html (original)
+++ websites/production/tapestry/content/unit-testing-pages-or-components.html Sun Feb 18 19:21:00 2018
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
</div>
-<h2 id="Unittestingpagesorcomponents-Settingupadrivingenvironment">Setting up a driving environment</h2><p>In order to unit test a page, you'll need to create an instance of <a class="external-link" href="http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/test/PageTester.html">PageTester</a>. It acts as both the browser and the servlet container so that you can use it to drive your page.</p><p>The PageTester falls into a middle ground between pure unit testing and <a href="unit-testing-pages-or-components.html">full-scale integration testing</a>.</p><p>As the PageTester is not a real servlet container, you need to tell it the same information as you would in web.xml:</p><ol><li>Your application package.</li><li>Your filter name. This is used to load your Tapestry IoC module only. If you have none, you can pass an empty string or anything to it.</li><li>The folder acting as your context root. This is used to locate your templates (if they're put there).Here is an examp
le (using TestNG, but you're free to use JUnit or anything else):</li></ol><div class="code panel pdl" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent pdl">
+<h2 id="Unittestingpagesorcomponents-Settingupadrivingenvironment">Setting up a driving environment</h2><p>In order to unit test a page, you'll need to create an instance of <a class="external-link" href="http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/test/PageTester.html">PageTester</a>. It acts as both the browser and the servlet container so that you can use it to drive your page.</p><p>The PageTester falls into a middle ground between pure unit testing and <a href="integration-testing.html">full-scale integration testing</a>.</p><p>As the PageTester is not a real servlet container, you need to tell it the same information as you would in web.xml:</p><ol><li>Your application package.</li><li>Your filter name. This is used to load your Tapestry IoC module only. If you have none, you can pass an empty string or anything to it.</li><li>The folder acting as your context root. This is used to locate your templates (if they're put there).Here is an example (using Tes
tNG, but you're free to use JUnit or anything else):</li></ol><div class="code panel pdl" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent pdl">
<pre class="brush: java; gutter: false; theme: Default" style="font-size:12px;">public class MyTest extends Assert
{
@Test
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@
}
}
</pre>
-</div></div><p>To submit a form by clicking a submit button, call the <a class="external-link" href="http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/test/PageTester.html#clickSubmit(org.apache.tapestry5.dom.Element,%20java.util.Map)">clickSubmit()</a> method instead.</p><h2 id="Unittestingpagesorcomponents-Unittestingacomponent">Unit testing a component</h2><p>To unit test a component, just create a test page containing that component. Then unit test that page.</p><h2 id="Unittestingpagesorcomponents-Third-partyTestingModules">Third-party Testing Modules</h2><ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://tapestrytestify.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">Tapestry-Testify</a> makes it easier to write page and component tests and run them efficiently.</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://tapestryxpath.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">Tapestry-XPath</a> allows you to use XPath expressions to query the Tapestry DOM (useful for simplifying page and component test
s).</li></ul></div>
+</div></div><p>To submit a form by clicking a submit button, call the <a class="external-link" href="http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/test/PageTester.html#clickSubmit-org.apache.tapestry5.dom.Element-java.util.Map-">clickSubmit()</a> method instead.</p><h2 id="Unittestingpagesorcomponents-Unittestingacomponent">Unit testing a component</h2><p>To unit test a component, just create a test page containing that component. Then unit test that page.</p><h2 id="Unittestingpagesorcomponents-Third-partyTestingModules">Third-party Testing Modules</h2><ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://tapestrytestify.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">Tapestry-Testify</a> makes it easier to write page and component tests and run them efficiently.</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://tapestryxpath.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">Tapestry-XPath</a> allows you to use XPath expressions to query the Tapestry DOM (useful for simplifying page and component tests).
</li></ul></div>
</div>
<div class="clearer"></div>