Re: Running Mauve tests with JUnit

[Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org>]

On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 13:21 +0000, David Gilbert wrote:
> Hi Dalibor,
> 
> I had meant to keep this on the Mauve lists, but I'll reply to the 
> Classpath list also...
> 

Sorry about the cross-posting :/ I've taken the classpath list out
again.

> 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). 

OK, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't familiar with Graydon's code
either, just remembered it was sitting in my mail box.

> 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.

That sounds very cool. 

Would it be possible to make that work without having to modify the
existing tests, by (just trowing random ideas here) using a proxy to
delegate to the junit Test runner, and having Testlet implement both the
junit.Test interface and the Testlet interface?

(I assume that a Junit test is recognized by an IDE by looking whether a
class implements the junit.Test interface? Or do IDEs look for a class
extending TestCase/TestSuite? I don't use IDEs much, so I hope the
questions are not too stupid.)

> 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.

Great, thanks for looking at that code. Sounds like it should be good
enough for the basic needs.

cheers,
dalibor topic