I need to use a third party .jar lib in my application: unfortunately the way this third party app is set up makes it well nigh on impossible to test on my windows box (since it's set up for a unix environment - I'll spare the details). So I have refactored it to be able to test it (altered the structure to use maven/spring so the handling of property files is more flexible, without changing the call out interface). If the new version compiles to the same .jar name/version/etc. I can presumably test it locally and then compile in the "real" .jar for production. Is this is daft idea? (I have a strong hunch that it is, since I am introducing a non-trivial dependency...). If so, how can I better test this library (without e.g. having to merge my own refactoring changes into the original code)?
+2
A:
Conceptually you have subdivided the third-party jar into two - the property bit and the rest. You replace the property bit with your own stuff and then procede to test the rest. On release you prepare a package including the bit you have tested and the original property stuff which you have not. In taking this approach, what risks have you introduced?
- That the code you release will not be the code you tested - it's a different JAR, albeit with careful process not a very different JAR - so if you trust yourself to get it right this may be an acceptable risk.
- That the code you didn't test is broken. This suggests that at least some testing is needed on the real platform.
- That the tests on Windows give different results from tests on Unix. Again some degree of Unix testing is indicated.
I think that your appraoch is pragmatic and that the risks can be mitigated by having at least some tests be executable on Unix. I assume that your Windows-based testing is for ease of development/debugging. I would do this, but I would try to build a regression test suite that I can run on Unix - JUnit tests could run there.
djna
2009-10-28 08:28:13
This does sound a but like Humph explaining One Song to the Tune of Another doesn't it?
djna
2009-10-28 08:28:50
@djna : thank you!
davek
2009-10-28 08:44:13