Jesse Yates 2012-09-15, 02:16
lars hofhansl 2012-09-15, 04:13
-Re: testing, powermock, jmockit - from pow-wow
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-15, 19:11
Perhaps the best course of action for test failures involving twisty code
weaving / alternate class loaders / multiple mocking libraries would be to
svn rm or @Ignore. We should consider that time and contributor bandwidth
is precious in a volunteer project, especially where unit tests are
concerned. If it's not possible to understand a unit test failure from
source given an exception and stack trace, the test itself is the problem.
On Friday, September 14, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:
> Using Powermock for its reflection library sounds great. I'd refrain from
> using its classloader, that is just asking for trouble.
> > To get the low-level access we could instead use jmockit at the cost of
> dealing with code-weaving.
> As we had discussed, this scares me :).
> I do not want to have to debug some test code that was weaved (i.e. has no
> matching source code lying around *anywhere*).
> Generally I think code should be designed to be unittestable. Each (set
> of) class(es) should be able to stand alone, enough to be unittested, then
> only a few bigger bigger functional tests are needed to test things
> end-to-end... I know that's pipe-dream. I'm also asking for every committer
> to be given a pony, btw.
> Mocking is the next best option.
> Thanks for taking this on!
> -- Lars
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:16 PM
> Subject: testing, powermock, jmockit - from pow-wow
> Hi all,
> TL;DR powermock is really hard (and ugly) to get working for the
> class-loading abilities, but has a really nice reflection library we can
> leverage. To get the low-level access we could instead use jmockit at the
> cost of dealing with code-weaving.
> At the pow-wow there was also some discussion of ways in which we can
> improve the testing infrastructure. Options toss around were things like
> improving the testing util, fixing classes to make them more testable, and
> The first two are definitely the right way to go, but can be pretty hard to
> do (problem with all legacy code) and often times can lead to awkward code
> to facilitate testing. Here, PowerMock is great - it lets you get into the
> internals more easily.
> That said, I've started working on HBASE-5456 (Introduce PowerMock into our
> unit tests to reduce unnecessary method exposure) and its a hairy mess.
> Powermock's whole functionality is based on using its own classloader.
> However, because of all the reflection that HBase and Hadoop does
> (particularly Hadoop here), we end up having to do a ton of ignore
> statements for classes/packages that PowerMock shouldn't load. I hacked on
> it for a bit and still couldn't get a mini-cluster up and running :-/
> Even given that pain we can get a lot of use from the reflection utilities
> - this allows you to replace existing objects with mocks, access private
> methods (no more 'exposed for testing methods'). The powermock jars amount
> to about 100K - small overhead for a lot the helper methods. See
> To resolve the cases where the powermock class-loading would be useful
> (e.g. catching object creation to use your own mock, rather than using
> factories or DI everywhere) we could use jmockit. Jmockit does the same
> basic stuff as powermock (minus the nice reflection library), but it does
> it through run-time code weaving for tests through the java agent
> This will give us really fine grained access to the code under test without
> having to do a lot of funky rewrites. However, code-weaving comes at the
> cost of loosing debugger usage as the code-weaving messes with the
> bytecode. I'd argue that its a small price to pay for getting highly
> controllable tests, *as long as we don't go overboard with the
> weaving.*Yes, when we start doing too much test weaving it can become
> untenable, but
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Stack 2012-09-15, 20:14
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-15, 20:40
Stack 2012-09-15, 03:34
Ted Yu 2012-09-15, 02:59