Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Protectable - why?

Expand Messages
  • Sharmila
    Hi, Could you throw some light on extending JUnit to permit deferred collection of assertion failures ...am a newbie and havn t a clue how to go about this.
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      Could you throw some light on "extending JUnit to permit deferred
      collection of assertion failures"...am a newbie and havn't a clue how
      to go about this.
      Would appreciate any help.

      Thanks in advance,
      Sharmila.

      --- In junit@egroups.com, jpulley@c... wrote:
      > Does anyone know why the Protectable interface is needed in the
      > design of JUnit? Why couldn't they just put the call to runBare()
      > directly in runProtected()? I'm extending JUnit to permit deferred
      > collection of assertion failures (so selected tests can continue if
      an
      > assertion fails), and although the extension works I'm afraid I'm
      > missing something.
    • Scott Eade
      I m only just starting to look at adding a couple of features to JUnit so I can t help with the question concerning the Protectable interface. One of the
      Message 2 of 3 , Jan 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm only just starting to look at adding a couple of features to
        JUnit so I can't help with the question concerning the Protectable
        interface. One of the enhancements I am interested in making
        however is something along the lines that jpulley is describing -
        i.e. allowing a test to continue following an assertion failure.

        Initially I just want the tests to continue so that I can get
        some kind of indication about how many assertions are failing
        in each test case. Longer term I am thinking that it may be
        useful to be able to indicate whether or not particular assertion
        failure should cause a test case to halt - this might be on a per
        assertion basis (perhaps a little tedious) or via some other
        mechanism (say a flag that can be set to indicate whether
        or not the next failure should end the test case).

        The motivation for this extension is that most test cases
        contain a whole bunch of assertions following the code
        that is being tested. I am actually writing several hundred
        test cases for code written by someone else - working
        this way it makes much more sense to test a feature to
        death in a single test case rather than writing a separate
        test case for each aspect of a feature. I have test cases
        that include 100 assertions with up to like 80 failures
        (I currently have to comment out lines containing failures
        in order to continue processing). Writing 100 separate
        test cases would not be practical and would actually
        make the test results harder to interpret.

        It would be interesting to hear jpulley's approach - any chance
        of you providing some guidance on what needs to be
        changed?

        Cheers,

        Scott

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Sharmila " <sharmila_pillai@...>
        To: <junit@egroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:43 AM
        Subject: [junit] Re: Protectable - why?


        > Hi,
        >
        > Could you throw some light on "extending JUnit to permit deferred
        > collection of assertion failures"...am a newbie and havn't a clue how
        > to go about this.
        > Would appreciate any help.
        >
        > Thanks in advance,
        > Sharmila.
        >
        > --- In junit@egroups.com, jpulley@c... wrote:
        > > Does anyone know why the Protectable interface is needed in the
        > > design of JUnit? Why couldn't they just put the call to runBare()
        > > directly in runProtected()? I'm extending JUnit to permit deferred
        > > collection of assertion failures (so selected tests can continue if
        > an
        > > assertion fails), and although the extension works I'm afraid I'm
        > > missing something.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.