Skip to main content
R
robertpenner-qlyG4I
Known Participant
September 27, 2009
Question

Does FlexUnit 4 support the old naming conventions?

  • September 27, 2009
  • 2 replies
  • 2519 views

Does FlexUnit 4 support the old naming conventions for testMethods, setUp and tearDown(), as an alternative to the new metadata? If not, please consider it. It would be much less work to migrate older tests if people didn't have to add [Test] everywhere just so FlexUnit can find the test methods.

It would be great if migrating a test case was, in most cases, a matter of removing the "extends TestCase", updating packages, and making setUp and tearDown public. Oh, and the asserts are a new style, but that can be made easier (I'll start another thread for that).

This topic has been closed for replies.

2 replies

M
mlabriola
Participating Frequently
September 27, 2009

I understand that it would be simple, but my inclination here is to not mix those metaphors as I could see it becoming even more confusing.

Right now, the only way something runs as a test, regardless of the name is that the [Test] metadata appears above it. In Fluint, you could put the Test metadata there or you could name things test* and it tended to be confusing. A developer might have decided that a test should no longer run, so they removed the [Test] metadata, but the test would still execute because of the name. That generated a fair number of confused users.

What might be a nice change instead (if anyone is interested) is just to have a simple app that parses an FU1 style class and adds the metadata. Right now, you need to remove the extension from testcase, change the setup and teardown to now longer be overriden methods and decorate your methods with [Test] or [Before] and [After]. Seems like work an app could do better than a human.

Mike

R
robertpenner-qlyG4IAuthor
Known Participant
September 27, 2009

>  they removed the [Test] metadata, but the test would still execute because of the name.

Ok. But why did they add [Test] to testFoo()? It's trying to use both conventions on the same method that's the problem there.

> Seems like work an app could do better than a human.

Agreed. And the app could change "testFoo" to "foo" (as an option, perhaps).

Robert

M
mlabriola
Participating Frequently
September 27, 2009

Sure.

I think it is because many of us have (for years) been puting test in front of our test method names. Even with the metadata, I still find myself doing that or searching for an alternative noun.

Mike

X
xavi_beumala
Participating Frequently
September 27, 2009

Hi Robert,

you don´t need to migrate your old FU1 tests. FU4 can run tests using both

syntaxs, the old and the new one. In fact a FU4 test suite can be made of

FU1, FU4 and Fluint testcases.

HTH

Xavi

R
robertpenner-qlyG4IAuthor
Known Participant
September 27, 2009

I'm aware that FU1 tests can be run without modification. Sorry for not being more clear--I'm talking about the situation where someone wants to migrate to FU4 in order to take advantage of new features. They've followed a consistent method naming convention ("testFoo") in perhaps hundreds of methods. FU4 has a the JUnit 4-type metadata convention, but couldn't this be an option, rather than a mandatory replacement?

The reflection code to get all methods either starting with "test" or having metadata "Test" is quite simple:

var description:XML = describeType(object);
var methodNodes:XMLList = description.method.( @name.indexOf("test") == 0
   || (hasOwnProperty("metadata") && metadata.@name == "Test") );

Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices