1 Reply Latest reply on Mar 23, 2009 3:08 PM by Clebert Suconic

    Remaining EasyMock tests

    Andy Taylor Master

      The following EasyMock tests are remaining. Before I just delete these ones i thought we should double check them. there are.

      Deployer tests. I'm refactoring these into proper unit tests.

      Journal/paging/persistence tests. Clebert, could you verify that these tests are now covered in the integration tests or elsewhere? Also PagingStoreTestBase is extended by an integration test which is probably wrong.

      PostOffice tests, these are mainly routing tests. I'll make sure that these are covered in the integration tests and add if not.

      Remoting/netty tests. Remoting is covered by default by any of the integration tests. Netty has some basic core client tests whcih should be enough, so I'll delete..

      Server. There is a QueueFActoryTest that I'll convert. Theres also a QueueImplTest and a MessageReferenceImplTest that I'm not sure are covered or not??


      After that there are some timing tests that I'll deal with separately.

        • 1. Re: Remaining EasyMock tests
          Clebert Suconic Master

          Paging & Journal tests will require UnitTests also. There are a few races that I tested using Unittests that would be easier to reproduce them as UnitTests.

          In the past we would consider anything using RealFile as an integration test, and that's why we had some common classes between Unit and integration. I will place those PagingTest and JournalTests as UnitTests.


          For the easyMock tests:

          PagingImplTest: usage is minimal, just creating a NiceMock that I could create an implemented Mock if you really want to get rid of EasyMock. (I'm not doing the upside-down programming style on some of these tests).

          Journal: There are a few tests using EasyMock to validate the encoding. I will get rid of those.


          I will still keep the FakeJournalUnitTests for now, as they are really easy to debug when things are going wrong during development on the journal.