[Cosmo] Re: [Dev] Proposal for new automation architecture
lisa at osafoundation.org
Fri Feb 10 12:06:51 PST 2006
We're not yet committed to standardizing on *any* single test
framework for Cosmo, OAF or other. In fact we'll have more than one
-- we are beginning to run Litmus (granted, not exactly a test
framework) automatedly, we have junit tests which aren't going away,
and we are considering what to focus on for automated client requests.
Have you considered the Python doctest-based client automated tests
that Heikki proposed and the Slide java/XML data-file oriented
approach that Grant posted on? Comments?
If the actual *unit* tests remain in Java, can the client automated
tests (the protocol request suites) be in Python without harm?
On Feb 10, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Kervin L. Pierre wrote:
> Hello Group,
> I am going to share my initial reaction to this
> proposal though I understand some may resent
> someone outside the development team coming
> across as critical...
> Philippe Bossut wrote:
>> OpenAutomationFramework) first. Keep in mind also that Mikeal is
>> trying to solve a problem that includes Chandler and Cosmo.
> Unifying the testing procedure and tools sound like
> a good idea but this will introduce Python as a
> dependency for testing Cosmo.
> a. Python is a large dependency simply for tests
> when Java has no shortage of testing frameworks.
> b. Someone working on cosmo may have no python
> experience at all and we may want to encourage
> developers to add their own tests as they go along.
> c. Internally Cosmo and Chandler have very little
> in common and so very few tests are going to
> be able to be shared.
> Best Regards,
> Cosmo mailing list
> Cosmo at osafoundation.org
More information about the Cosmo