[news.eclipse.tools.buckminster] Re: Automated Testing of RCP Products w

["Tas Frangoullides" <tfrangoullides@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Achim,

I forgot about the ability to configure which plugins you want in the launch 
configurations. This helps.

You alternative approach is also interesting. I guess it's not too different 
to what I am doing now but it will be much more convenient.

Thanks,
Tas


"Achim Demelt" <a.demelt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:h5bl4n$us6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Tas,
>
> You can specify the set of enabled bundles for your tests in the launch
> configuration. While this will probably not be exactly the same 
> environment
> as the final product, you can nonetheless get quite close to it.
>
> Alternatively, you could first build your product and then materialize 
> your
> tests in a separate workspace. This other workspace can use the product as
> its target platform. The test's launch configuration can then include all
> workspace bundles (i.e. the test cases) and all target platform bundles.
>
> HTH,
> Achim
>
> Tas Frangoullides wrote:
>
> > Hi Achim,
> >
> > While working on the testing part of my build I have been considering the
> > way I want it to work and have some questions about the functionality you
> > are adding to buckminster.
> >
> > Am I right in thinking that your implementation will run the tests in
> > buckminsters build environment? An advantage of this is that it is very
> > close to what a developer executres in his IDE. However, I've always like
> > testing the final deployable artifacts by adding only the bare minimum
> > dependencies required to execute the tests. This has a benefit of testing
> > that all required plugins have been included in your product and that it
> > will work when installed. Do you imagine supporting this kind of testing?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tas
> >
> > "Achim Demelt" <a.demelt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:h56i03$ipq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Tas,
> > >
> > > I published a very early demo version here: http://buckminster-
> > > contrib.googlecode.com/files/site_1.0.0.200906052157-1--311_17163268.zip
> > >
> > > This version is rather old (around the 3.5 RC timeframe), so I cannot
> > > guarantee that it's still working. Also, please read
> > > http://code.google.com/p/buckminster-contrib/wiki/BuckminsterJUnit 
> > > before
> > > trying it out. The most important restriction is that it's _not_ capable
> > > of
> > > running plug-in tests. It only supports plain Java JUnit tests. This 
> > > will
> > > probably render it pretty much useless for your RCP tests...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Achim
> > >
> > > Tas Frangoullides wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Achim,
> > > >
> > > > Is there an update site I can get this from to try it out?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Tas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Achim Demelt" <a.demelt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:h56du9$chm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Tas,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is work-in-progress. Please see
> > > > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=243293 for more
> > > > > information.
> > > > >
> > > > > The headless build will then basically be able to run the tests in the
> > > > > same
> > > > > way as you would run them interactively in your IDE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Achim
> > > > >
> > > > > Tas Frangoullides wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wondering what the best way of approaching testing with buckminster
> > > > > > is. I tried examining the buckminster build to find out where you run
> > > > > > your tests but I can't see anything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My previous builds use the Eclipse Test Framework. They create an
> > > > > > eclipse environment from the recently built distribution artifacts,
> > > > > > install the tests and necessary dependencies and then kick-off the
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > and gather results. I'm not sure where buckminster could be leveraged
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > this and was
> > > > > > curious about the new test functionaloty you are adding. Where would
> > > > > > this fit in?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Tas