Hi Dalibor, I had meant to keep this on the Mauve lists, but I'll reply to the Classpath list also... Dalibor Topic wrote: >On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:40:55AM +0000, David Gilbert wrote: > > >>I didn't get any feedback about this...anyone think it is a good/bad idea? >> >> >excellent idea in my opinion. Have you looked at graydon's junit mauve >bridge at >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/mauve-discuss/2003-q4/msg00003.html ? > > > I hadn't seen Graydon's bridge class, thanks for the link (and I should do more research next time). Looking over it, it has the advantage that it doesn't require any existing Mauve testlets to be modified (and we have a lot of testlets), but the disadvantage that it doesn't buy you much in terms of integration with IDEs (you still have to generate the test list ['classes'] file, for instance, which is the major stumbling block that people seem to have when trying to run Mauve). By modifying the Mauve testlets in the way that I proposed, you can (for example) run a single test in Eclipse just by selecting the source file and clicking 'Run as --> JUnit test'. I figured that was the sort of thing people were expecting. JUnit does seem to me to be less flexible in terms of selecting subsets of tests, and it's approach of reporting a pass/fail for each test method (only) makes it, in my opinion, less suitable for the type of testing we are doing on GNU Classpath. But I was careful in the "conversion" to retain the Mauve testlets so that we can continue running the tests in the traditional (Mauve) way. >If we do something like that. I'd like to see the junit code from >freenet merged in, to keep it simple to run mauve without external >dependencies. > > Agreed. I didn't have much trouble getting the tests to compile against the freenet code (a basic GPLed implementation of the JUnit API for those that don't know what it is) but didn't get any meaningful output from running the tests against it yet. I don't think that will be too hard to resolve. Regards, Dave
