JUnit

["B.C. Holmes" <bc...@roxton.com>]

Dave Bryson wrote:
> 
> Until then I'd like to try and add a JUnit suite that we can build upon.
> We can then add these tests to an ant file and have a fairly automated
> test after a fresh build.

     I'd just like to go on record as saying that I think that this is
a brilliant idea.  The company where I work uses a variety of eXtreme
Programming practices, including automated JUnit testcases for all
classes; the payback is incredible.

     I've got a coupl'a JUnit test cases that I've written for testing
the client stuff, but I'm not sure how one would build testcases
without making a lot of (non-portable) assumptions about the DAV
server you're sending requests to.  Any ideas?

BCing you
-- 
B.C. Holmes         \u2625           http://www.roxton.com/~bcholmes/
"Wherefore now, baby, time will tell/I chose my roads and I chose 
 them well/But will I go forth, or just go to hell/For I am a 
 terrible man."
         - Jory Nash, _Terrible Man_

Re: JUnit

["B.C. Holmes" <bc...@roxton.com>]

Dave Bryson wrote:
> 
> What are the non-portable assumptions?

     For example, when I wanted to test the PROPFIND client method, I
wrote test cases that sent requests to both collections and
non-collections, checked that I got the right number of D:hrefs
returned, checked the properties, etc.  That only worked because I
knew that the dav collection I was sending the request to had a
certain number of resources.  That's an example of an assumption that
doesn't port well.

BCing you
-- 
B.C. Holmes         \u2625           http://www.roxton.com/~bcholmes/
"Wherefore now, baby, time will tell/I chose my roads and I chose 
 them well/But will I go forth, or just go to hell/For I am a 
 terrible man."
         - Jory Nash, _Terrible Man_

Re: JUnit

[Dave Bryson <da...@miceda-data.com>]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, you wrote:
> Dave Bryson wrote:
> > 
> > Until then I'd like to try and add a JUnit suite that we can build upon.
> > We can then add these tests to an ant file and have a fairly automated
> > test after a fresh build.
> 
>      I'd just like to go on record as saying that I think that this is
> a brilliant idea.  The company where I work uses a variety of eXtreme
> Programming practices, including automated JUnit testcases for all
> classes; the payback is incredible.
> 
>      I've got a coupl'a JUnit test cases that I've written for testing
> the client stuff, but I'm not sure how one would build testcases
> without making a lot of (non-portable) assumptions about the DAV
> server you're sending requests to.  Any ideas?

What are the non-portable assumptions?

At a minimum, I think you'll have to at least have the WebDav Servlet
running.  The newer version of Ant has an (optional) JUnit tag.  I've been
looking at  the src code examples of the testcases to see how they're
handling GET, etc...    While I'm out for Thanksgiving this week I'm going
to do a little thinking about it.

-- 
Dave Bryson
daveb@miceda-data.com
----------------------

Re: Code reorg

[Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>]

To avoid causing problems to anyone who could be working on the moved files,
I'll only remove the old files tomorrow.

Note : CVS sucks ! Easily moving stuff around can be useful, once in a while
:P

Remy

Code reorg

[Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>]

Since I didn't get any objections, I'm going to start the code reorg.
The DAV client will be moved to scr/webdav/client.

Remy