Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 361066

Summary:	Consider adopting JUnit 4 for tests
Product:	[RT] RAP	Reporter:	Ralf Sternberg <rsternberg>
Component:	RWT	Assignee:	Project Inbox <rap-inbox>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	P3	CC:	ruediger.herrmann
Version:	1.5
Target Milestone:	2.0 RC1
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:

Description Ralf Sternberg

2011-10-15 15:07:57 EDT

Now that we have Java 1.5, we could consider migrating our tests to JUnit 4. Although I don't see a strong need for it, there are a couple of minor benefits such as getting rid of the TestCase superclass, additional assert methods, easier tests for exceptions, etc. And since there is no good reason to stay with JUnit 3.x either, I guess we should do the switch.

Technically, it should be possible to turn all our tests to Junit 4 with some regex search and replace magic.

Comment 1 Rüdiger Herrmann

2011-10-17 15:35:17 EDT

+1
Though JUnit 4 treats every method that has a @Test annotation as a test, I would prefer to keep the convention that every test must start with "test".

Comment 2 Ralf Sternberg

2011-10-17 18:47:15 EDT

I see your point. With the "test" prefix, the methods names start with a verb and make their meaning more clear. But OTOH, I also don't like the redundancy in @Test testXXX.
When you look at the method name as the assumption under test, wouldn't the former of these two look better?

@Test
public void callBackRequestIsReleasedOnSessionInvalidate()

@Test
public void testCallBackRequestIsReleasedOnSessionInvalidate()

Another point is the tooling support. In the outline, you can easily distinguish testXXX methods from others. But then again, do we have any public methods in our test classes that are not methods?

Comment 3 Rüdiger Herrmann

2011-10-18 09:51:30 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> I see your point. With the "test" prefix, the methods names start with a verb
> and make their meaning more clear. But OTOH, I also don't like the redundancy
> in @Test testXXX.
I agree that the redundancy isn't nice.

> When you look at the method name as the assumption under test, wouldn't the
> former of these two look better?
> 
> @Test
> public void callBackRequestIsReleasedOnSessionInvalidate()
> 
> @Test
> public void testCallBackRequestIsReleasedOnSessionInvalidate()
> 
> Another point is the tooling support. In the outline, you can easily
> distinguish testXXX methods from others. But then again, do we have any public
> methods in our test classes that are not methods?
Unlikely that there are public methods that aren't tests. However, having every method start with test also allows to filter (Ctr+O + "test"). This is what I prefer over visually distinguish green (=public test) methods from differently colored non-test methods in the outline.

Comment 4 Ralf Sternberg

2012-12-28 11:51:57 EST

As of commit af36901793519270685d7e1240a5ca8ee110c6f6, all tests have been migrated to JUnit4.
I did not change any method names.