I meant that environment could be created, stored, and later reused by other test methods.
Thanks, Mikhail 2006/4/28, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 4/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2006/4/28, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 4/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 2006/4/27, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > On 4/27/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I say leave them mixed. We are no more likely to want to run > > > > > > serialization tests separately than we are locking tests etc. and > > > > > > trying > > > > > > to layout the tests on disk to represent all the different metadata > > > > > > about each test case is not going to work. > > > > > > > > > > +1. usually we have test layout like: one class - one TestCase. I > > > > > > > > Sometimes we need different setUp and tearDown operations > > > > for different tests against the same class. This is best to be handled > > > > as > > > > multiple TestCases (or test classes in other words as TestCase can be > > > > ambiguous) > > > > > > That's true. It happens quite often and has no correlation with some > > > particular type of tests (like serialization testing). When you need > > > to cover 50 methods of some class for instance, you can hardly expect > > > that all the preparation required for one of them is really needed for > > > others. I don't think that is a good reason to create separated test > > > cases. I'd prefer to use the most essential and common instantiations > > > in setUp() and provide further customization in each particular test. > > > > Some days ago I posted statistics about ~1% of tests that run 80% of time. > > Most of these tests do exactly what you describe here - in the test > > methods they do what is supposed to be done in setUp > > Sorry Mikhail. I didn't catch. > setUp() is called before each test call. Therefore setUp() which > performs some "universal" initialization definitely takes much time > than setUp() doing very essential things and allowing each test method > to perform specific settings if it is required. > Could you explain please how more time-consuming approach (IMHO) can be > quicker? > > -- > Anton Avtamonov, > Intel Middleware Products Division > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
