> -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:33 AM > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility > > Vladimir Egorov wrote: > > Sorry for a bit of a messy entry into the list. I did not realize that > > using html email could be a problem. Thanks Stephan for pointing this > > out. > > > >>> My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare. > > > >> Could you please expand a little on TestLogic for the rest of the Ant > > developers? > > > > TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an > > open source testing framework for the enterprise. The flavor of this > > effort is to provide the glue that would tie together existing > > frameworks (e.g. JUnit) in a consistent manageable way. Over time, we > > want to cover the breadth of the enterprise testing needs, based on our > > knowledge of BEA Systems Inc. testing needs. The project is so far a > > private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we > > reach some point of maturity and can get clearance, hopefully within 2-4 > > month. > > That's interesting. Have you seen the work I'm doing with deployment of > junit3/4/testng+other frameworks and merging of results
No we haven't seen your work. The 'merging of results' does sound like the kind of thing we are doing; it would be interesting to learn more from the links you kindly provided. > uniform serialization of results for over-RMI comms, and (b) some > evolving XML format. For (b) I've got marked up XHTML, but am thinking > of how to use Atom to integrate results, a polling app and log data: > > http://smartfrog.org/presentations/distributed_testing_with_smartfrog_sl id > es.pdf > http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=smartfrog We currently want to stay away from RMI as in our prior experience framework RMI sometimes interferes with server RMI in unexpected ways. Also we want to support non-java frameworks (e.g. WinRunner) via single protocol. > Uniformity of both the java format and the xml output would be very > beneficial, and putting the stuff into antunit and <junit> and <junit4> > is part of my goal. We are trying to with existing frameworks with minimum modifications. For example, we support <junit> by adding a custom nested <formatter> (listener) that knows how to talk to us. > One place needs to be the root repository (with a > license everyone likes i.e. apache), with reuse everywhere. Yes, we are planning to open source under Apache license. > This causes > trouble with java serialization (you cannot repackage stuff), but would > work for XML formats. Yet another reason to stay away from RMI. > >>> To support writing tests in Ant, we want to offer a library of > >>> asserts. We want start with antunit asserts, and have the ability to > >>> enhance (e.g. add new ones). Unlike AntUnit, we don't require > >>> asserts to throw AssertionFailedException. > >>> > >>> Do you have any suggestions for us? > > > >> If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6 > >> compatible branch. > > > > From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that > > similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be > > interested to learn the outcome of this discussion. > > > >> How long do you expect TestLogic to stick with 1.6.5? > > > > We have recently migrated from 1.6.2 to 1.6.5, and we are being told > > that migrating to 1.7 is not in the near future. > > ah, well, you get to miss out on the test format improvements I'm > planning for Ant1.7.1 and up :) > > -steve I am looking forward to learn more about your work. Thanks, :) --Vladimir _______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
