some of your answers are not entirely clear to me. I'll try to rephrase
1. Moving/rewriting the unittests for the JDatabase class was not done
to make sure that the whole change to the DB systemprocess is backwards
compatible. (simply because the old unittests still worked) Would now be
the time to do that rewrite/change?
2. "unit"tests vs. "integration"tests: We want to seperate all the
integration tests into their own branch. If it were up to me, I wouldn't
do that, since I don't necessarily see the benefit. But we especially
now only have the JDatabaseDriver* classes outsourced like this. What
about JDatabaseExporter*, JDatabaseImporter*, JCacheStorage*,
JSessionStorage* and JGithub*? All those classes depend on external
services and subsequently would have to be moved into that branch. Maybe
a better approach would be to define some rules how to layout such tests
in our current structure, which would also help with our other tests,
since they use several different ways to store mock and inspectore classes.
3. "We don't need unittest stubs for our test tree, we can always simply
generate them on the fly with phpunit" If you mean only the code
coverage report, I might agree with you, but I see a few more issues
with not having the stubs around. First of all, our test report would
incorrectly state that all tests have been implemented, and second of
all, someone who wants to write a unittest for an existing class then
can't simply tackle that single method that he/she would have written
before, but also has to generate the stub first and get that one
working. And no, the stubs generated by PHPUnit don't work all right out
of the box. So I strongly suggest to get our unittest base fixed up now
and not postpone that to the point where someone might want to write a
> Nice shot across the bow. As far as expectations for inclusion,
> they've been published for a while
> now: http://developer.joomla.org/strategy.html#stabletrunk. Could
> they be improved? Sure. There is something there though.
> Additionally, nothing goes through from the Joomla Platform staging
> branch to master without passing an automated suite that checks code
> style with PHPCS as well as validates that all the unit tests pass.
> You characterization that Joomla is in a dark forest of regression is
> a bit much. There is a lot to improve upon form an API standpoint,
> and that is a driving factor for separating the platform code out to
> be worked on independently, but let's try to avoid the hyperbole please.
> 1. Is there a good reason to create these special cases, like
> renamed classes, but not renamed tests and especially moving the
> DB testing partially out of our normal testing structure?
> For your first query, there was a reason; whether or not it was good
> is up to interpretation. The idea was that by not changing the unit
> tests we served a better chance of ensuring that the massive
> refactoring of the database package had a higher level of
> backward compatibility. Rewriting the unit tests for the database
> package would have made it more likely that something would have been
> missed. This was always a temporary measure to demonstrate that it
> all worked.
> The second part of your question gets to a more fundamental aspect of
> unit testing. Ultimately, we have lots of tests that are in fact not
> "unit" tests. Many of these depend on a database to run. In a
> perfect world we'd have good seams where we can mock out the database
> and just test the "units" of code that we are writing the tests for.
> I'm hoping that over time we can separate the true "unit" tests from
> "integration" tests. Integration tests would be tests that depend on
> external systems to run, such as database tests.
> That, however, won't answer your question as to why the
> JDatabaseDriver* tests were separated from the rest of the test suite.
> The concept here is that the "unit" suite now runs completely against
> an in-memory SQLite database that is created and loaded at runtime.
> Everything in the "unit" suite can be run completely
> configuration-free. The things in the database suite all require
> connections to external database systems, and would require
> environment specific configuration to run.
> 2. Please, when refactoring, don't just make the tests somehow
> work, but do it properly, adding all methods at least as stubs
> that you added and change both classnames AND filenames, so that
> we are not left with a JDatabaseMySQLTest without a corresponding
> So this notion that we have to have skeletons and stubs for everything
> in the platform is actually not accurate in my opinion. It is quite
> possible to have PHPUnit simply add all the files without cluttering
> up the test tree with a bunch of meaningless skeleton files.
> For reference:
> With respect to the notion of fixing up the tests when you change
> code, in general I'm fully supportive. We took this slightly
> different approach with the database package for the reasons I've
> outlined above temporarily. Hopefully now that we've demonstrated a
> very high level of backward compatibility we can move forward and
> revamp all the unit tests for the database package. In the ideal case
> we here we'd be mocking out the database system dependencies
> completely in the unit suite, and only putting the very specific parts
> where we need to test integration with the database systems in the
> separate "database" suite.
> - Louis
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Gary Glass <g...@mccull.org
> <mailto:g...@mccull.org>> wrote:
> OK so I admit I'm don't have time to stay plugged in to J! dev or
> or CMS, but I really think it would be a good idea to have a
> standard (and
> published) checklist of requirements for getting a pull request
> approved for
> production: comments, unit tests, coverage, code convention
> etc. Joomla needs to find its way out of the dark forest of regression
> errors. Yes it's volunteer, but that doesn't mean it has to be
> amateurish. A
> lot of people are trying to make a living on this code base.
> Gary Glass
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>] On Behalf Of Hannes
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:23 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [jplatform] Re: Platform Unittests
> In addition to this, could someone please publish the link to our
> installation (http://build.joomla.org) and the link to the
> platform code
> coverage report in the documentation?
> Am 19.03.2012 19:47, schrieb Hannes Papenberg:
> > Hi folks,
> > about 6 months ago I started looking at the unittests for the
> > and tried to improve those. While I did my work, I noticed that the
> > tests are not in the best shape... And I don't mean the
> > missing/skipped tests, but the structure of our test folders. A good
> > example are our database tests. When I started, we had
> > and a corresponding JDatabaseMySQLTest class. Then it was
> rewritten to
> > JDatabaseDriverMySQL and the class was moved to another folder
> in the
> > platform. The unittest however stayed in the same folder and
> while the
> > class was renamed, the file wasn't. Now the tests for the database
> > drivers are apparently in a seperate folder outside of the whole
> > structure of the unittests. The im- and exporters however are still
> > "tested" in the normal/common structure of our tests.
> > This is just an example of several issues in that regard that I
> > and I want to ask two things:
> > 1. Is there a good reason to create these special cases, like
> > classes, but not renamed tests and especially moving the DB testing
> > partially out of our normal testing structure?
> > 2. Please, when refactoring, don't just make the tests somehow work,
> > but do it properly, adding all methods at least as stubs that you
> > added and change both classnames AND filenames, so that we are not
> > left with a JDatabaseMySQLTest without a corresponding
> > I'm happy to help out in getting the tests up to speed again and to
> > improve them, but in that process I also have to ask the people
> > managing the pull requests for the platform to respond to these
> > requests more quickly. In my work I discovered about 100 classes
> > were not covered even by unittest stubs and thus didn't even show up
> > in the code coverage report at all. I prepared pull requests for
> > and am now in the process of preparing those requests for the 4th
> > time, since the others were not approved in time before some major
> > refactoring made the merge break again, often enough breaking it so
> > much that it was easier for me to start over than to try to
> salvage the
> > Thanks for your time.
> > Hannes
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
> We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
> SPAMfighter has removed 266 of my spam emails to date.
> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
> The Professional version does not have this message