Re: [Junit-devel] Adding @NonParameterized

[David S. <da...@sa...>]

Good point.

Here's how I'm thinking about moving forward: we currently have @Rule,
which provides a way to override the rules for _running_ a method, for
_every @Test_ method in the class.  I'm considering a similar
construct, which will allow overriding:

1) Which methods trigger tests
2) How many tests per method
3) Validation of test methods
4) Test-instance creation
5) Test-method invoking

Given this, it should be possible to enable something very close to
@NonParameterized as a drop-in Rule-like object, rather than as a core
modification to the overall Parameterized runner.

One issue: I can't think of a name for this new construct.  Suggestions welcome.

   David Saff

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Marius Kruger <am...@gm...> wrote:
> On 25 June 2011 21:19, Marius Kruger <am...@gm...> wrote:
>> On 20 June 2011 21:57, David Saff <da...@sa...> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Parameterized.class currently allows one parameterization per test
>>> class.  This patch enables two parameterizations, one of which must be
>>> the special case of "no parameters".  A runner like JUnitParams
>>> (http://code.google.com/p/junitparams/) enables an arbitrary number of
>>> parameterizations, including "no parameters".  I'd like to consider
>>> how to handle the arbitrary case, like JUnitParams, and would rather
>>> not create a special case for "no parameters" that users would need to
>>> migrate to the new framework when it's ready.
>>>
>>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> Yes now that I looked at JUnitParams. It is awesome - much more than I
>> needed so far.
>
> I now found a case that was handled much nicer with my patched version:
> I just want to setUp(@Before) the tests according to a parameter. This
> is possible with the standard JUnit Parameterized runner and my
> version because we get the value in the constructor. eg.:
>
> A)==
> @RunWith(JUnitParamsRunner.class)
> public class MyJUnitParamsTest {
>
>    protected AbstractHomeLayout homeLayout;
>
>    public void setupHomeLayout(int layoutVersion) {
>        homeLayout = init(layoutVersion);
>    }
>
>    protected Object[] getLayoutVersions() {
>      return new Object[][] { { 0 }, { 1 } };
>    }
>
>    @Test
>    @Parameters(method = "getLayoutVersions")
>    public void testParameterized(int layoutVersion) throws IOException {
>        setupHomeLayout(layoutVersion);
>        //test stuff
>    }
>
>    @Test
>    public void testNonParameterized() throws IOException {
>        //test stuff
>    }
>
>   // 10 more tests like these
> }
> ==
>
> B)==
> @RunWith(value = Parameterized.class)
> public class MyParameterizedTest {
>
>    int layoutVersion
>    public HomeLayoutTest(int layoutVersion) {
>         this.layoutVersion = layoutVersion;
>    }
>
>    protected AbstractHomeLayout homeLayout;
>
>    @Before
>    public void setupHomeLayout() {
>        homeLayout = init(layoutVersion);
>    }
>
>    @Parameters
>    public static Collection getLayoutVersions() {
>      Object[][] data = new Object[][] { { 0 }, { 1 } };
>      return Arrays.asList(data);
>    }
>
>    @Test
>    public void testParameterized() throws IOException {
>        setupHomeLayout(layoutVersion);
>        //test stuff
>    }
>
>    @Test
>    @NonParameterized
>    public void testNonParameterized() throws IOException {
>        //test stuff
>    }
>
>   // 10 more tests like these
> }
> ==
>
>
> So with A you have to modify three lines for every single parameterized test:
> @Parameters(method = "getLayoutVersions")
>    public void testParameterized(int layoutVersion) throws IOException {
>        setupHomeLayout(layoutVersion);
> but in B you just annotate the non-parameterized tests...
>
>
>
> --
> <>< Marius ><>
>