I briefly looked at TestNG in the past. It seems nice (mainly due
rejecting JUnit religious belief that tests should not share any
common setup), however it doesn't buy us anything as far as
performance testing is concerned. So this is a topic of a different
discussion.
Andrus
On Feb 1, 2006, at 4:45 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> I was actually just thinking earlier today that Cayenne might
> benefit from
> using TestNG. This thought came about when I saw Andrus comment
> out some
> test cases that were currently failing. With TestNG, you can just
> mark a
> test as skippable and then at least in your output, you know the
> test was
> skipped for whatever reason.
>
> Anyway, the reason I mention it now is that TestNG collects test
> duration
> values as it runs. A bit crude, but seems like it would work.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>
> On 1/31/06 11:42 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be a good idea to have some simple benchmarks being
>> run as a part of a nightly build. My goal is not stress testing, but
>> rather to always have a picture of how ongoing changes affect
>> Cayenne's relative performance on the same hardware. This will be
>> just another quality control to make sure we didn't do anything
>> stupid (and also to have a proof of performance gains when we do
>> profiling/optimization).
>>
>> In technical terms I was thinking about a simple Ant/Junit setup that
>> runs a few common scenarios that are not dependent on Cayenne
>> version: select, select w/cache, select w/prefetches, insert/update/
>> delete... same operations in remote setup.
>>
>> So I was wondering what would people recommend as far as such testing
>> setup. Is it worth looking at some other tools beyond Ant and Junit,
>> like for instance JMeter? We are not testing a web application after
>> all...
>>
>> Andrus
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 16:55:28 EST