presenting a junit testing framework to a multi university community
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Presenting a JUnit Testing Framework to a Multi-University Community

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Presenting a JUnit Testing Framework to a Multi-University Community - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 232 Views
  • Uploaded on

Presenting a JUnit Testing Framework to a Multi-University Community. Romerl Elizes May 4, 2007. Agenda. Introduction Coeus JUnit Testing Framework Community of Testers Literature Review Relevance Methodology Future Work Questions and Answers References. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Presenting a JUnit Testing Framework to a Multi-University Community' - Audrey


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
agenda
Agenda
  • Introduction
  • Coeus
  • JUnit Testing Framework
  • Community of Testers
  • Literature Review
  • Relevance
  • Methodology
  • Future Work
  • Questions and Answers
  • References
introduction
Introduction
  • Presentation goals:
    • will highlight work done on developing a JUnit Testing Framework for the Coeus Application
    • will explore its applicability to a multi-university community
    • introduce the concept of a “Community of Testers”
coeus
Coeus
  • Coeus:
    • Electronic Research Administration (eRA) system developed by MIT
    • Automates a variety of university research functions: proposal tracking, proposal development, grant tracking, conflict of interests, internal review board, federal electronic submissions, award budgeting, and compliance standards
    • Follows an Open Source Community model called the Coeus Consortium
coeus5
Coeus
  • Coeus Consortium:
    • Participant universities who lack the resources can participate in the Consortium for a nominal annual fee
    • Participant universities can download the software binaries and code and customize their deployment based on university needs
    • Each university only uses a select number of modules
    • Each university can contribute back to the Consortium if it finds an innovative solution to any issues with the module
    • Includes 100+ member universities, government agencies, corporations
coeus6
Coeus
  • Coeus Testing:
    • Internal testing mechanism practiced by the developers
    • One week testing cycle involving select members of Consortium
    • Fixing bugs by committee vote
coeus7
Coeus
  • Disadvantages:
    • MIT software development team always on the move to develop product
    • Iterative development is not tested properly thus exposing upward compatibility bugs
    • Limited programming support in member universities
    • Testing infrastructure is different for each member university
junit testing framework
JUnit Testing Framework
  • Personal responsibilities for Coeus:
    • Hired by University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) to support the Coeus eRA
    • Introduced business intelligence reporting capabilities non-existent in Coeus product
    • Introduced a testing infrastructure that would support university needs
junit testing framework9
JUnit Testing Framework
  • JUnit Testing Framework:
    • Suggested by Dr. Fred Grossman and Dr. Joe Bergin in developing software development projects based on JUnit
    • JUnit Framework encompasses JUnit, Abbot, Cactus, HtmlUnit, and HttpUnit open source software geared for testing
    • Coeus Testing for UMDNJ involved:
      • Address database table validation (Cactus)
      • Address web content validation (Cactus, HtmlUnit, HttpUnit)
      • Robot automation to test validity of GUI components (Abbot)
community of testers
Community of Testers
  • One Tester
    • Presented the work at Coeus User Group Conference
    • 1 university
      • has strengths in a specific set of modules
      • should focus testing its specific set of modules
      • goal is to develop 1 test per day
      • 200 tests for one year
community of testers11
Community of Testers
  • Many Testers
    • 50 universities
      • 50 x 200 tests = 10,000 tests in one year
    • Author proposed a development of a Coeus Testing Community – a “Community of Testers”
      • Each university asynchronously develops its own tests
      • Contributes them back into the Consortium
      • Contributes to the development and maturity of product
      • The power of many compensates for the limitations of the one
literature review
Literature Review
  • Community of Practice (CoP):
    • suggests the concept of team infrastructure and multiple overlapping communities for sharing knowledge and standardizing practices (Kahkonen: “Agile Methods for Large Organizations”)
    • focuses on communities within a specific location using workshops and team building to foster collaboration
    • cannot easily be applied to a community of universities which have distance and timing factors that adversely affect collaboration
literature review13
Literature Review
  • Open Source Community/Testing:
    • PyPy is an open source project to develop software infrastructure within the European Union (During: “Trouble in Paradise: the Open Source Project PyPy. EU-Funding and Agile Practices”)
    • Koponen defined a QA process in the Open Source Model (Kopenen: “Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software Maintenance”)
    • Maki-Asiala defined a QA process of Open Source components in a corporate model (Maki-Asiala: “Quality Assurance of Open Source Components Integrator Point of View”)
relevance
Relevance
  • Work proposes the idea of a “Community of Testers”
  • Work involves an actual institution with actual stakeholders that will benefit substantially
  • Work proposes a solution based on limited funding issues that many universities experience
  • Work supports the marriage of information technology and research administration
methodology
Methodology
  • Deployment on Four Linux Servers: Production, Backup, Development and Test
    • Tomcat 5.0.2.8 Application Server
    • Oracle 9G Database Server
    • Oracle 9G Client on Windows, MacOS, and Linux
    • Coeus Application
methodology16
Methodology
  • Testing Methodology
  • Cactus, HtmlUnit, HttpUnit
    • 50 tests mostly database-specific ran against each server
  • Abbot
    • 20 GUI tests on proposal and awards tracking, reporting capabilities
future work
Future Work
  • The future of the Coeus Testing Community:
    • MIT and author are in a discussion phase on how to introduce this framework into the Consortium
    • Expected implementation: March 2008
    • Work on framework to handle multiple releases
    • Exploration of other open source methodologies to benefit this framework
references
References
  • [COE] “Coeus Consortium.” Web site. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2007. Link: http://www.coeus.org/coeus-cons/
  • [DUR] B. During. “Trouble in Paradise: the Open Source Project PyPy, EU-Funding, and Agile Practices.” In Proceedings of AGILE 2006 Conference (AGILE’06), pp. 221-231. July 2006.
  • [KAH] T. Kahkonen. “Agile Methods for Large Organizations – Building Communities of Practice.” In Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference (ADC 2004), pp. 2-11. June 2004.
  • [KOP] T. Koponen. “Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software Maintenance.” In Proceedings on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA’06), pp. 52. October 2006.
  • [MAK] P. Maki-Asiala, M. Matinlassi. “Quality Assurance of Open Source Components: Integrator Point of View.” In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’06), pp. 189-194. September 2006.
ad