[Cosmo] Re: [Dev] Proposal for new automation architecture

[Lisa Dusseault]

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?

Lisa

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:
>> (http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Projects/ 
>> 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,
> Kervin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cosmo mailing list
> Cosmo at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo