RE: [Cppunit-devel] Parameterizing tests by using XML

[Moran Ben-D. <mbe...@ii...>]

I'd just like to add to the discussion with a point about usefullness of
parameterizing tests..

The protocol for passing parameters to tests cases that I'm actually looking
for is one which allows my command line tools to pass in variables to my
tests.. that is.. I always create a command line tool for running the tests
for the case where i need to check the validity of component on a remote
system for support, etc.. thus, my tests have several contexts in which they
run:

	1. development (my machine)
	2. qa (centralized server)
	3. other developers machines
	4. production (which can often mean two machines if there is a
staging server)

Just thought I throw this into the salad of parameterizing tests.. XML in my
case is too beaurocratic to run in the case of the QA or production
servers.. i need a quick way of running a parameterized test and XML as
simple as it is, still ends up costing too much effort on my part (e.g. with
issues like is the installed xml parser version correct, does it work
properly, etc.)

moran

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Wenner [mailto:ro...@po...]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 3:01 AM
To: Michel Armin; cpp...@li...
Subject: Re: [Cppunit-devel] Parameterizing tests by using XML


Hi,

On Friday 19 July 2002 08:36, Michel Armin wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Actually I was thinking about a little bit different solution here.
> It differs mainly in two points:
>
> 1. the framework should be responsible for parsing the xml file and
> invoke the test with a particular set of parameters (as opposed to
> let each of the test cases perform the parsing)
>
> 2. the DTD of the xml file is a less sophisticated

These are _very_ important points -- you would not want to need test 
cases for your test cases, right?

I still see two big drawbacks on using a XML driven test.

First it drops the advantage of having the tests written in the same 
language as the code under test. Developers have to learn another new 
language / syntax / semantics and can not focus on their real work. 
Even though XML looks easy, it has some pitfalls you will most likely 
uncover and which will cost really lots of time, nerves, and sanity.

Second I don't think the XML overhead justifies the results. How many 
tests do you have that run the same way that you just need to exchange 
the input and output values? (And how many of those use primitive 
inputs and outputs?) If I ever have to write more than three tests for 
the same method, I think hard about abetter design, usually the method 
has just too much responsibilities.

Just my 2 cents,

Robert


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Cppunit-devel mailing list
Cpp...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppunit-devel