import static org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertTrue;
import static org.junit.Assert.fail;
+import static org.junit.Assume.assumeTrue;
import java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject;
import java.lang.reflect.Field;
}
}
}
+
+ /**
+ * Rather than adding {@literal @}Ignore to known-failing tests,
+ * write the test so that it notifies us if it starts passing.
+ * This is useful for closing related or forgotten bugs.
+ *
+ * An Example:
+ * <code><pre>
+ * public static int add(int a, int b) {
+ * // a known bug in behavior that has not been fixed yet
+ * raise UnsupportedOperationException("add");
+ * }
+ *
+ * {@literal @}Test
+ * public void knownFailingUnitTest() {
+ * try {
+ * assertEquals(2, add(1,1));
+ * // this test fails because the assumption that this bug had not been fixed is false
+ * testPassesNow(12345);
+ * } catch (UnsupportedOperationException e) {
+ * // test is skipped because the assumption that this bug had not been fixed is true
+ * skipTest(e);
+ * }
+ * }
+ *
+ * Once passing, this unit test can be rewritten as:
+ * {@literal @}Test
+ * public void knownPassingUnitTest() {
+ * assertEquals(2, add(1,1));
+ * }
+ *
+ * If you have a better idea how to simplify test code while still notifying
+ * us when a previous known-failing test now passes, please improve these.
+ * As a bonus, a known-failing test that fails should not be counted as a
+ * passing test.
+ *
+ * One possible alternative is to expect the known exception, but without
+ * a clear message that it is a good thing to no longer get the expected
+ * exception once the test passes.
+ * {@literal @}Test(expected=UnsupportedOperationException.class)
+ * public void knownFailingUnitTest() {
+ * assertEquals(2, add(1,1));
+ * }
+ *
+ * @param e the exception that was caught that will no longer
+ * be raised when the bug is fixed
+ */
+ public static void skipTest(Throwable e) {
+ assumeTrue("This test currently fails with " + e, false);
+ }
+ /**
+ * @see #skipTest(Throwable)
+ *
+ * @param bug the bug number corresponding to a known bug in bugzilla
+ */
+ public static void testPassesNow(int bug) {
+ fail("This test passes now. Please update the unit test and bug " + bug + ".");
+ }
}
package org.apache.poi.poifs.macros;
import static org.apache.poi.POITestCase.assertContains;
+import static org.apache.poi.POITestCase.skipTest;
+import static org.apache.poi.POITestCase.testPassesNow;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertFalse;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull;
-import static org.junit.Assert.fail;
-import static org.junit.Assume.assumeTrue;
import java.io.File;
import java.io.FileInputStream;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
-import java.io.StringWriter;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
reader.close();
}
- private static void skipTest(Throwable e) {
- assumeTrue("This test currently fails with " + e, false);
- }
-
// This test is written as expected-to-fail and should be rewritten
// as expected-to-pass when the bug is fixed.
@Test
public void bug59858() throws IOException {
try {
fromFile(POIDataSamples.getSpreadSheetInstance(), "59858.xls");
- fail("This test passes now. Please update the unit test and bug 59858.");
+ testPassesNow(59858);
} catch (IOException e) {
if (e.getMessage().matches("Module offset for '.+' was never read.")) {
//e.printStackTrace();
public void bug60158() throws IOException {
try {
fromFile(POIDataSamples.getDocumentInstance(), "60158.docm");
- fail("This test passes now. Please update the unit test and bug 60158.");
+ testPassesNow(60158);
} catch (ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException e) {
skipTest(e);
}