Hi Oleg, Thanks your for detailed answer. Using junit4 annotations where possible sounds good to me.
Also I would like to thank everybody involved in migration to junit4 process for your efforts. You were able to move a problem which looked mountain-heavy. I believe that is a significant milestone on Ignite stabilization road. Well done! вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 20:20, oignatenko <oignate...@gridgain.com>: > > Hi Ivan, > > That's a very good question and I think you spotted a point where Ignite > test developer's preferences need to change when migrating from Junit 3 to > 4. > > In brief, when developing under JUnit 3 there were good reasons to prefer > our homebrew template methods (beforeTestsStarted, beforeTest, afterTest, > afterTestsStopped) over those provided by JUnit (setUp / tearDown). To > answer your other question, in order to reliably understand how our methods > work one would better go to (potentially changing) code of GridAbstractTest > and check where and how these are invoked. > > But under JUnit 4 these reasons don't apply anymore and preference should go > the other way, namely in favor of annotations @Before, @After, @BeforeClass, > @AfterClass. > > In other words, when these annotations allow you implement desired test > logic you better use them. These annotations have stable, well documented > and widely understood semantics (and don't require one to skim through 3K > lines of code for grasping details:). > > And it makes sense to "fallback" to our old-fashioned methods only when you > simply have no other choice. For example doing some quick and simple fix in > a legacy code that is filled with multiple usages of our old template > methods it may be okay to choose to keep old style - instead of doing > cumbersome, risky and lengthy refactoring or polluting test code with > inconsistent use of annotations intertwined with old style methods. > > That's what I think. If you're interested in why I think so, refer to boring > explanation in PS. > > regards, Oleg > > ----- > > PS. With regards to old preferences I believe it is very important to keep > in mind that Junit 3 didn't provide means to do initialization and cleanup > once for all test methods in the class. > > So when one needed things to run once per test class they had to go > somewhere else. In Ignite the natural way to go was GridAbstractTest which > provided this functionality via beforeTestsStarted and afterTestsStopped > (with some glitches as I recently learned but still). And after one had to > use these methods there was no compelling reason to use JUnit's setUp and > tearDown, because GridAbstractTest also provided similar methods. > > It was just easier to consistently use full and cohesive set of methods > provided by GridAbstractTest than switch back and forth between it and JUnit > 3 methods. > > With JUnit 4 above reasoning doesn't apply anymore because its features are > just as full and cohesive and can be consistently used without having to > fallback to stuff from GridAbstractTest. So we have a real choice now and > can judge based on other criteria than functional completeness (since both > ways now satisfy that most important criteria). > > And this reveals us a full spectrum of JUnit advantages over > GridAbstractTest (which was obscured before, because JUnit 3 was > functionally incomplete). > > And on that newly opened spectrum JUnit 4 API wins hands down. > > JUnit 4 is much better documented and "googlable", it is stable and much > wider known. The last but not the least, as I already mentioned, it doesn't > require one to skim through 3K lines of code for grasping details and its > semantics doesn't depend on (possibly changing) implementation code. > > Also, initialization and cleanup methods of JUnit 4 make an organic part of > wider, more comprehensive API which smoothly integrates with IDE, Maven, > Teamcity and all imaginable Java tools over there. > > Every time one annotates @Test or @Ignore gives them a reason to prefer > other JUnit annotations over something else. It works about the same as I > described above for beforeTestsStarted in GridAbstractTest and how it > inhibited use of JUnit 3 methods: after you picked one part of some API it > naturally becomes more convenient to keep using other parts of that API. > > Summing up, I believe that every time you have a (sensible) choice between > JUnit 4 and GridAbstractTest methods you just pick JUnit 4 and don't look > back. > > > Павлухин Иван wrote > > Ed, Oleg, > > > > Could you please clarify on the following point: > >> 3. Add @Before, @After on methods which should run before, after a > >> test (setUp, tearDown in current approach). > > Beforehand we used to override beforeTestsStarted, beforeTest, > > afterTest, afterTestsStarted. What will happen with these methods > > after migration to junit4? I can see that order of execution can > > become tricky especially when both styles are used at the same time. > > And an immediate suggestion is to avoid using both styles (annotations > > and overridden methods) in the same test. What is your insight? > > вт, 11 дек. 2018 г. в 10:27, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > vozerov@ > > > >: > >> > >> Hi Oleg, > >> > >> Yes, makes perfect sense. Thank you. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM oignatenko < > > > oignatenko@ > > > > wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Vovan, > >> > > >> > I just created JIRA ticket to address your concerns: > >> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10629 > >> > > >> > In brief, the plan is that a week or two after migration is over we > >> will > >> > run > >> > code inspection that detects JUnit 3 style tests that lack @Test > >> annotation > >> > and fix these tests if there are any. > >> > > >> > Does that answer your question? > >> > > >> > regards, Oleg > >> > Vladimir Ozerov wrote > >> > > Ed, > >> > > > >> > > Several questions from my side: > >> > > 1) When the change is expected to be merged? > >> > > 2) What contributors with opened PRs and new or updated JUnit3 tests > >> are > >> > > supposed to do? Rewrite to JUnit4? > >> > > > >> > > If yes, then we should give them time to have a chance to get used to > >> new > >> > > approach and resolve possible conflicts. > >> > > > >> > > Vladimir. > >> > > > >> > > пн, 10 дек. 2018 г. в 20:32, Eduard Shangareev < > >> > > >> > > eduard.shangareev@ > >> > > >> > > >: > >> > > > >> > >> Ivan, > >> > >> > >> > >> So, suggested actions with the new approach: > >> > >> 1. Add @Test annotation on test methods. > >> > >> 2. Add @RunWith(JUnit4.class) annotation on test class. > >> > >> 3. Add @Before, @After on methods which should run before, after a > >> > >> test (setUp, tearDown in current approach). > >> > >> 4. Add your test-class to a suite using suite.addTest(new > >> > >> JUnit4TestAdapter(YourTestClass.class)); > >> > >> 5. Use @Ignore instead fail(); for muting test. > >> > >> 6. You could start using @Parametrized instead of inheritance. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:15 PM Павлухин Иван < > >> > > >> > > vololo100@ > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi Oleg, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I noticed that GridAbstractTest is now capable to run junit4 > >> tests. > >> > >> > What are the current recommendations for writing new tests? Can we > >> use > >> > >> > junit4 annotation for new tests? > >> > >> > пн, 12 нояб. 2018 г. в 19:58, oignatenko < > >> > > >> > > oignatenko@ > >> > > >> > > >: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Hi Ivan, > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > I am currently testing approach you used in pull/5354 in the > >> "pilot" > >> > >> > > sub-task with examples tests (IGNITE-10174). > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > So far it looks more and more like the way to go. The most > >> promising > >> > >> > thing I > >> > >> > > observed is that after I changed classes in our test framework > >> the > >> > >> way > >> > >> > you > >> > >> > > did, execution of (unchanged) examples tests went exactly the > >> same > >> > as > >> > >> it > >> > >> > was > >> > >> > > before changes. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > This indicates that existing tests won't be affected making it > >> > indeed > >> > >> low > >> > >> > > risk. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > After that I converted examples tests to Junit 4 by adding > >> @RunWith > >> > >> and > >> > >> > > @Test annotations and tried a few, and these looked okay. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Currently I am running full examples test suite and after it is > >> over > >> > >> I > >> > >> > will > >> > >> > > compare results to the reference list I made by running it prior > >> to > >> > >> > > migration. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > regards, Oleg > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > -- > >> > >> > > Sent from: > >> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -- > >> > >> > Best regards, > >> > >> > Ivan Pavlukhin > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
