[JBIDE-23509] made sure ProjectNameValidationTest has a conn #1670
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | ||
| /******************************************************************************* | ||
| * Copyright (c) 2016 Red Hat, Inc. | ||
| * Distributed under license by Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| * This program is made available under the terms of the | ||
| * Eclipse Public License v 1.0 which accompanies this distribution, | ||
|
|
@@ -10,9 +10,6 @@ | |
| ******************************************************************************/ | ||
| package org.jboss.tools.openshift.ui.bot.test.project; | ||
|
|
||
| import org.jboss.reddeer.common.wait.TimePeriod; | ||
| import org.jboss.reddeer.common.wait.WaitWhile; | ||
| import org.jboss.reddeer.core.condition.ShellWithTextIsAvailable; | ||
|
|
@@ -21,11 +18,19 @@ | |
| import org.jboss.reddeer.swt.impl.shell.DefaultShell; | ||
| import org.jboss.reddeer.swt.impl.text.DefaultText; | ||
| import org.jboss.reddeer.swt.impl.text.LabeledText; | ||
| import org.jboss.tools.openshift.reddeer.requirement.OpenShiftConnectionRequirement.RequiredBasicConnection; | ||
| import org.jboss.tools.openshift.reddeer.utils.OpenShiftLabel; | ||
| import org.jboss.tools.openshift.reddeer.view.OpenShiftExplorerView; | ||
| import org.jboss.tools.openshift.reddeer.view.resources.OpenShift3Connection; | ||
| import org.junit.After; | ||
| import org.junit.Before; | ||
| import org.junit.Test; | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * @author mlabuda@redhat.com | ||
| * @author adietish@redhat.com | ||
| */ | ||
| @RequiredBasicConnection | ||
| public class ProjectNameValidationTest { | ||
|
|
||
| public static final String PROJECT_NAME_FORMAT_ERROR = | ||
|
|
@@ -38,61 +43,51 @@ public class ProjectNameValidationTest { | |
| public static final String PROJECT_NAME_MAX_LENGTH_ERROR = | ||
| " Maximum length allowed is 63 characters for project name"; | ||
|
|
||
| @Before | ||
| public void setUp() { | ||
| openNewProjectShell(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @After | ||
| public void cleanUp() { | ||
| closeNewProjectShell(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testShortProjectName() { | ||
| new LabeledText(OpenShiftLabel.TextLabels.PROJECT_NAME).setText("s"); | ||
| new DefaultText(PROJECT_NAME_SHORT_ERROR); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testInvalidProjectNameFormat() { | ||
| new LabeledText(OpenShiftLabel.TextLabels.PROJECT_NAME).setText("--"); | ||
| new DefaultText(PROJECT_NAME_FORMAT_ERROR); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I have same comment as in #1667 regarding test failure. |
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testForbiddenCharactersInProjectName() { | ||
| new LabeledText(OpenShiftLabel.TextLabels.PROJECT_NAME).setText("AAA"); | ||
| new DefaultText(PROJECT_NAME_FORMAT_ERROR); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I have same comment as in #1667 regarding test failure. |
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testLongProjectName() { | ||
| new LabeledText(OpenShiftLabel.TextLabels.PROJECT_NAME).setText( | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "0123456789" + | ||
| "01234"); | ||
| new DefaultText(PROJECT_NAME_MAX_LENGTH_ERROR); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I have same comment as in #1667 regarding test failure. |
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private void openNewProjectShell() { | ||
|
|
||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have same comment as in #1667 regarding test failure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can only reiterate my objections:
A test with an exception is a failing test. If this is not acceptable to you then we should make sure red deer behaves differently (ex. by not throwing an exception but by throwing an AssertionFailedError that your fail() is throwing). Repeating the very same catch and fail() in tests makes no sense. It's unnecessary noise imho.
I'd like to progress here, but it looks like we are stuck in arguments. @jeffmaury @alexeykazakov further opinions please?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do get arguments of both sides. It's kind of frog-mice war right now. I agree with Marian that the crucial part of each test should be done by some assertion (or as he is doing it, because we don't have better mechanism right now).
But even despite that, I'm for merging this PR as it is. It hugely increases readability and it's possible (quite easily) to see from the exception where the error occurs.
We'll think of how to implement assertions into RedDeer framework so we can do this properly next time ;-)
I talked to Marian about my opinion and he agreed that this PR can be merged (but he is still not happy about that :-D).
If Jeff and Alexey want to provide opinion it's still desired. The more valid points are made, the better code we'll have.