ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vladimir Egorov" <>
Subject RE: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Date Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:01:55 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig []
> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:14 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Vladimir Egorov <> wrote:
> > TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide
> > an open source testing framework for the enterprise.
> [...]
> > The project is so far a private project on CodeShare. We are
> > planning to open source when we reach some point of maturity
> My personal advice would be to go public as soon as you can.  It is
> far easier to attract new contributors if the code base isn't too
> polished and there are still obvious places to work on.

Ok. I will see what I can do.

> >> If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6
> >> compatible branch.
> >
> > From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that
> > similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would
> > be interested to learn the outcome of this discussion.
> Paul is subscribed here as well, haven't seen him chime in, yet.

Here is a snippet from Paul's email where he told me about WebTest:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul King []
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:28 PM
> To: Vladimir Egorov
> Cc: Vishal Vishnoi; Gouri Pandeshwar
> Subject: Re: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
> WebTest is available at:
> It provides a complete testing framework for web applications,
> web services and email systems. WebTest has the notion of a test
> step. Each step is just an Ant task with a context and hooks for
> reporting. At the moment WebTest assertions don't extend AntUnit.
> They are all Ant Tasks and throw StepFailedException or
> StepExecutionException if an assertion isn't met. This in turn
> ties in with its reporting. At the moment we are looking at
> whether the verification steps should be made more like AntUnit.
> At the moment we don't want to give up Ant 1.6.5 compatibility
> and we aren't willing to give away the excellent reporting
> capabilities which WebTest is known for.
> There are many assertion steps. They all begin with verify.
> To give you a flavour, some of the ones related to web site
> and Ajax application testing are:
>   verifyTitle,verifyText,verifyElement,verifyInputField
>   verifyLinks,verifyXPath,verifyCheckbox,verifyCookie
> In your Ant script you would simply do:
>   <invoke url=""/>
>   <verifyText text="UPCOMING EVENTS"/>
> There are other assertions as well, e.g. on a pdf document:
>     <verifyEncryptionPermissions allow="fillIn"
>         deny="printing, modifyContents, copy, assembly"/>
> Emails you can test fields, content and attachments.
> Web Services you can test content and attachments using xpaths.
> Excel documents you can verify content and formulas.

Note how verify*s are similar to assert*s. Also: "we don't want to give
up Ant 1.6.5 compatibility".

Here is a snippet from Paul's last email on the subject.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul King []
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 10:30 PM
> To: Vladimir Egorov
> Cc: Vishal Vishnoi; Gouri Pandeshwar
> Subject: Re: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
> If you do decide on a technical direction for going forward on how
> to represent your assertions (e.g. making them more aligned with
> AntUnit assertions), I'd be keen to hear from you on just that piece
> if that is deemed acceptable. I am likely to make changes to how
> WebTest represents its assertions over the next few months and any
> feedback on what you believe to be a useful direction would be

This brings us to your next question.

> Which parts of AntUnit would you use?
> Only the assertions or the tasks and listeners as well?

Currently we are only interested in asserts library. It is easy to write
them, but it would not be good if the same thing was done differently in
different projects.

What is your take on this? I mean, some generic asserts are the same for
AntUnit, WebTest, and TestLogic, but some are specific to the project.
Do you think it is worth the effort to standardize on a common asserts
library and what should be the extension mechanism?

In the future, we may be interested in AntUnit runtime (task and
listeners) as well, depending on the direction our project takes.


Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message