June 10, 2005

JUnit 4 overview

It appears that Kent Beck has been working in stealth mode on JUnit 4, and if it wasn't for a small slip in an interview a couple of months ago, nobody would know.  It turns out that there already is some new code checked into their CVS depot and Alexandru and I took a quick look there.

Here is what we found so far:

  • Annotations.  As we observed with TestNG, annotations let you do away with inheritance of a base class and make more sense than trying to cram test information into method names.
     
  • The @Test annotation has an expected attribute (probably similar to @ExpectedExceptions, but it's hard to tell at this point)=.  I also note they only allow one class to be expected while TestNG lets you specify more than one).
     
  • There is a new @Ignore annotations, which we decided to specify as an attribute of @Test in TestNG (e.g. @Test(enabled = false)).
     
  • TestNG's timeout and invocationCount also seem to be planned for JUnit.
     
  • Finer grained configuration access.  JUnit only allowed to setUp/tearDown around test methods, you can now do this at the suite level (TestNG offers even greater flexibility: around classes and around groups).
     
  • Suites are being deprecated and they are looking for a way to describe collections of tests (quite a surprising decision, but may I suggest a file called...  I don't know, junit.xml?).
     
  • There will be a converter (I invite the JUnit team to start off with com.beust.testng.JUnitConverter and tweak the imports it generates :-)).
     
  • Run failures first (TestNG generates a testng-failures.xml for this).
     
  • Quoted from the todo file:  "be able to specify the order of tests (ewwww....)".  Now that is very interesting...  They are just falling short of specifying test dependencies but as much as I find this feature crucial for non-unit testing, I question its use for unit testing.
     
  • Groups!  Yes, that's right.  A lot of people criticized the need for groups when they were introduced in TestNG a year ago, but we have definitely seen users like this feature and use it a lot.  It's good to see JUnit follow the same path.

For more information, Alexandru posted a more detailed list of the various features offered by JUnit 4 with his own comments.

A few comments now...

  • This is a pretty good start, and I am not surprised to see that dependent test methods are not planned for JUnit (this feature probably doesn't belong to a unit-testing framework anyway).
     
  • I didn't notice any new tests, so they are not using Test-Driven Development...  makes you wonder, uh?
     
  • There is still no separation of static and dynamic models.

    Having test groups is not very useful you can't specify which groups to execute at runtime.  I hope JUnit will provide a less awkward way to invoke tests than putting them in a suite() method.  As you probably know by now if you are a regular reader of this blog, I still firmly believe that I shouldn't have to recompile Java code if I want to run a different set of tests, which is the reason behind the existence of the testng.xml file in TestNG.

All in all, this is very exciting but I feel disappointed that no email was sent to the JUnit mailing-list nor request for feedback posted on any blog:  the JUnit team seems to have decided to work behind closed doors on this.

The JUnit mailing-list itself has 5800 subscribers (!) and would probably be an invaluable way for them to get feedback.  I'm not quite sure what is the driving vision behind JUnit 4 (besides TestNG :-)), but I certainly hope they will be coming out of stealth mode and discuss it publicly soon.

At any rate, I am quite happy to see that things are finally moving in the testing area!

 

Posted by cedric at June 10, 2005 02:31 PM
Comments

Good eye in seeing this Ced.

Would be cool to have the Ruby feature of 'test recent', which works out tests that have been changed, and even maybe code changes that could affect tests and run them first (to complement the test failures).

D

Posted by: Dion Almaer at June 10, 2005 08:15 PM

Would this announce the end of TestNG?

Posted by: Thierry Janaudy at June 11, 2005 04:11 AM

Hi Cederic,

some replies to your questions/comments:

"I didn't notice any new tests..." where did you look? org.junit.tests it is. We didn't write these tests while you were not looking . If you do some test archeology you will see how we bootstrapped from old style tests to new style ones. We were always consuming our own dog food. These tests are also a good source to find out what is already in JUnit4.

"There will be a converter (I invite the JUnit team..." nope, we have changed our mind on this item. We rather have good backward compatibility support (actually we also have forward compatibility).

"...work behind closed doors"
I do not like asking for feedback when you have no code in your hands. We now have something and we are getting closer to ask a larger audience for feedback.

"Suites are being deprecated and they are looking for a way to describe collections of tests" we will not deprecate suites, but we want to make it simpler for both the user and junit tool providers to support suites.


"...I'm not quite sure what is the driving vision behind JUnit 4 (besides TestNG :-))"
I'm glad that there is TestNG, but there are also other interesting testing framework efforts. In particular there is NUnit. NUnit has introduced using annotations in testing frameworks a while ago. Most of the requests for annotation based tests came from the dual NUnit/JUnit users. So we are listening to the community.

Posted by: Erich Gamma at June 11, 2005 09:02 AM

Very good points by Erich Gamma. I agree with the strategy to code first, and then get feedback. If you get feedback first, it's hard to put all of the ideas together.

Cedric, you make it seem like TestNG is the greatest thing. Let's be real, JUnit is the standard and it has gotten that way because it is easy to use. Lose that, and things get messy. That's why I don't like the idea of creating seperate xml files. That makes things a little bit more complicated than it needs to.

Good post Cedric, but a little more faith in JUnit would help.

Posted by: stas kubasek at June 11, 2005 10:18 AM

Is java1.4 really over?

Over in ant-land, we are just debating when to EOL win9x and java1.2 support, and here junit, our universal counterpoint, is embracing annotations so happily that java1.5 is mandatory? I know it can improve things, but that is a brutal one way migration.

We are going to have some fun getting this all to integrate into propertly, I can see. Somehow support 3.8.1 on pre-1.5 systems, yet enable junit4 features on newer releases. Hmmm.

Posted by: Steve Loughran at June 13, 2005 06:45 AM

Personally, I really do not care if TestNG supports J2SE 1.4- applications. I use it for J2SE 5.0. Thatís it. And for the ones who are lucky enough to use J2SE 5.0, TestNG is great.
I think it would be best to have two versions of JUnit as the new one represents a major shift in usage. JUnit does not need to be backward-compatible.

Posted by: Thierry Janaudy at June 13, 2005 08:24 AM

Regarding stas kubasek comment, I've used JUnit first because it was the standard (that is, it had a book) like I used Struts because they were books. Does it prove something ?

And now I prefer to use TestNG, not because of the poor advertisement speech, but because it is easier to use, and easier to manage. Now, if the Eclipse plugin could recognize groups declared only on Configuration annotations...

Posted by: Damien B at June 14, 2005 09:54 AM

Hey,
After searching for something to convert my work place's old test cases from junit3 to 4 I've listened to your advice and used TestNG's junit converter.

The project can be found here: junit-converter.sf.net

Posted by: abyx at July 20, 2007 05:06 AM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?