This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Mauve project.
Re: Running Mauve tests with JUnit
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
> 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.