(Android) Using TestCase instead of deprecated InstrumentationTestCase

(Android) Using TestCase instead of deprecated InstrumentationTestCase

In some cases deprecated InstrumentationTestCase can be replaced with more generic TestCase.

Each test was ran after change (to satisfy boliu's comment, that replacement "is more complicated than a simple search and replace.").

BUG=697653

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:23:00]

Description was changed from

==========
X


X


X


X


x


X


X


X


X


X


X


X

BUG=
==========

to

==========
(Android) Using TestCase instead of deprecated InstrumentationTestCase

In some cases deprecated InstrumentationTestCase can be replaced with more
generic TestCase

BUG=697653
==========

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:26:05]

marcin@mwiacek.com changed reviewers:
+ boliu@chromium.org, changwan@chromium.org, dfalcantara@chromium.org

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:26:53]

The CQ bit was checked by marcin@mwiacek.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-01 23:27:17]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-01 23:27:18]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-01 23:27:18]

Dry run: No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. 
CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has
received an L-G-T-M from a full committer.
Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
Committers are members of the group "project-chromium-committers".
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[gone, 2017-03-01 23:27:59]

dfalcantara@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jbudorick@chromium.org

[gone, 2017-03-01 23:27:59]

Tests -> jbudorick@

[boliu, 2017-03-01 23:29:23]

boliu@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ yolandyan@chromium.org
- jbudorick@chromium.org

[boliu, 2017-03-01 23:29:23]

not lgtm

this is more complicated than a simple search and replace.
InstrumentationTestCase provides a lot of functionality that the tests needs,
and can't simply be replaced with the generic one from junit. I doubt this even
compiles

+yoland who's been working on this for awhile

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:31:15]

On 2017/03/01 23:29:23, boliu wrote:
> not lgtm
> 
> this is more complicated than a simple search and replace.
> InstrumentationTestCase provides a lot of functionality that the tests needs,
> and can't simply be replaced with the generic one from junit. I doubt this
even
> compiles
> 
> +yoland who's been working on this for awhile

after changing I ran each test and it was OK

these, which are not OK, I haven't included...

Description say clear: "In some cases"

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:31:38]

The CQ bit was checked by marcin@mwiacek.com to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-01 23:32:59]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-01 23:33:00]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-03-01 23:33:01]

Dry run: A disapproval has been posted by following reviewers:
boliu@chromium.org.
Please make sure to get positive review before another CQ attempt.

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:34:03]

marcin@mwiacek.com changed reviewers:
+ jbudorick@chromium.org

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:39:19]

Description was changed from

==========
(Android) Using TestCase instead of deprecated InstrumentationTestCase

In some cases deprecated InstrumentationTestCase can be replaced with more
generic TestCase

BUG=697653
==========

to

==========
(Android) Using TestCase instead of deprecated InstrumentationTestCase

In some cases deprecated InstrumentationTestCase can be replaced with more
generic TestCase.

Each test was ran after change (to satisfy boliu's comment, that replacement "is
more complicated than a simple search and replace.").

BUG=697653
==========

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:48:40]

On 2017/03/01 23:34:03, marcin wrote:

-boliu

[marcin, 2017-03-01 23:48:51]

marcin@mwiacek.com changed reviewers:
- boliu@chromium.org

[jbudorick, 2017-03-02 01:06:21]

On 2017/03/01 23:29:23, boliu wrote:
> not lgtm
> 
> this is more complicated than a simple search and replace.
> InstrumentationTestCase provides a lot of functionality that the tests needs,
> and can't simply be replaced with the generic one from junit. I doubt this
even
> compiles
> 
> +yoland who's been working on this for awhile

This is basically correct. Yoland has been working on this in
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=640116, which is RVG
because it has also involved some internal changes.

[gone, 2017-03-02 01:10:19]

Removing a reviewer who has "not lgtmed" a CL doesn't mean that you can just
land it; the system won't let you.

[the real yoland, 2017-03-02 02:02:24]

yolandyan@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ boliu@chromium.org

[the real yoland, 2017-03-02 02:02:25]

An example of how this would be converted:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2726003002

[marcin, 2017-03-02 02:12:40]

On 2017/03/02 02:02:25, the real yoland wrote:
> An example of how this would be converted:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2726003002

I agree, that with some tests we need full conversion...
but when extending TestCase is sometimes enough, can't we use this?

[marcin, 2017-03-02 02:14:21]

On 2017/03/02 02:12:40, marcin wrote:
> On 2017/03/02 02:02:25, the real yoland wrote:
> > An example of how this would be converted:
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2726003002
> 
> I agree, that with some tests we need full conversion...
> but when extending TestCase is sometimes enough, can't we use this?

...in other words - does dropping my CL has got any technical explanation?

[boliu, 2017-03-02 02:26:30]

On 2017/03/02 02:14:21, marcin wrote:
> On 2017/03/02 02:12:40, marcin wrote:
> > On 2017/03/02 02:02:25, the real yoland wrote:
> > > An example of how this would be converted:
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2726003002
> > 
> > I agree, that with some tests we need full conversion...
> > but when extending TestCase is sometimes enough, can't we use this?
> 
> ...in other words - does dropping my CL has got any technical explanation?

We are also going from junit3 to junit4, meaning we will stop using TestCase
altogether. So this CL does nothing to help with that effort.

[marcin, 2017-03-02 02:37:38]

On 2017/03/02 02:26:30, boliu wrote:
> On 2017/03/02 02:14:21, marcin wrote:
> > On 2017/03/02 02:12:40, marcin wrote:
> > > On 2017/03/02 02:02:25, the real yoland wrote:
> > > > An example of how this would be converted:
> > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2726003002
> > > 
> > > I agree, that with some tests we need full conversion...
> > > but when extending TestCase is sometimes enough, can't we use this?
> > 
> > ...in other words - does dropping my CL has got any technical explanation?
> 
> We are also going from junit3 to junit4, meaning we will stop using TestCase
> altogether. So this CL does nothing to help with that effort.

and this should be mentioned first instead of suggesting, that patch was made
just with copy-paste and without any compiling and functional checking