protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
addTests(UriTests.class);
addTests(NamingTests.class);
// --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
// --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
addTests(UrlTests.class);
// -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
}
These are the tests that I have run. They are the standard set minus the
classloader.
All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these tests
explicitly check for File or Folder,
that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.
I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS. I haven’t posted it to my github
yet, but I will if you want to look. So, with zookeeper you have nodes and
paths etc.
each node may have children and may have data. So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
correct designation.
RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER, the
others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY. So
I don’t
think they count.
An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.
On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels (e...@zusammenkunft.net)
wrote:
Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they are
already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).
What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.
Gruss
Bernd
Von: Otto Fowler
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests
If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
the testcases in the
provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.
I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
check?
