JUnit test framework for AppRTC Android demo.

webrtc/webrtc_examples.gyp

 # Copyright (c) 2012 The WebRTC Project Authors. All rights reserved.
 #
 # Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license
 # that can be found in the LICENSE file in the root of the source
 # tree. An additional intellectual property rights grant can be found
 # in the file PATENTS.  All contributing project authors may
 # be found in the AUTHORS file in the root of the source tree.
 {
   'includes': [
     '../talk/build/common.gypi',
@@ skipping 443 matching lines @@
             'java_in_dir': 'examples/androidtests',
             'is_test_apk': 1,
             'test_type': 'instrumentation',
             'test_runner_path': '<(DEPTH)/webrtc/build/android/test_runner.py',
           },
           'includes': [
             '../build/java_apk.gypi',
             '../build/android/test_runner.gypi',
           ],
         },
+
+        {
+          'target_name': 'AppRTCDemoJUnitTest',
+          'type': 'none',
+          'dependencies': [
+            'AppRTCDemo_apk',

[kjellander_webrtc, 2016/05/16 14:18:10]

I think AppRTCDemo is the correct target to depend on here. The _apk target is
just adding packaging of the APK. What you're interested in here is just to have
the classes that you're about to write tests for compiled, right? Changing this
will speed up a clean build of AppRTCDemoJUnitTest a little.

[sakal, 2016/05/17 08:01:25]

For some reason if I change this, tests won't compile. They don't seem to be
able to find the classes.

examples/androidjunit/src/org/appspot/apprtc/TCPChannelClientTest.java:3: error:
cannot find symbol

[kjellander_webrtc, 2016/05/17 08:22:48]

Hmm, OK. Let's not bother spending time on that then.

+            '<(DEPTH)/base/base.gyp:base',

[kjellander_webrtc, 2016/05/16 14:18:10]

Is 'base' really needed? Some of the Chromium tests seems to depend on
'base_java', which is smaller. Some only depends less targets as well.

[sakal, 2016/05/17 08:01:25]

Right, I'll change this.

+            '<(DEPTH)/base/base.gyp:base_java_test_support',
+            '<(DEPTH)/base/base.gyp:base_junit_test_support',
+          ],
+          'variables': {
+            'main_class': 'org.junit.runner.JUnitCore',

[kjellander_webrtc, 2016/05/16 14:18:10]

What are the main differences between using this and the class Chromium uses
(org.chromium.testing.local.JunitTestMain) ? I think we might want to use
Chromium's helper classes since we're already compiling it and all.

[sakal, 2016/05/17 08:01:25]

I believe "org.chromium.testing.local.JunitTestMain" uses versions of jar files
that are actually used in the project while "org.junit.runner.JUnitCore" would
download them from the internet repository. There might be some other
differences as well. I changed this.

+            'src_paths': [
+              'examples/androidjunit/',
+            ],
+            'test_type': 'junit',

[kjellander_webrtc, 2016/05/16 14:18:10]

To use all of Chromium's test framework for Android, I think you need to add the
'wrapper_script_name' variable here.

Code searching in Chromium shows a lot of such examples:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#search/&q=JunitTestMain%20f:gyp...

[sakal, 2016/05/17 08:01:25]

Done.

+          },
+          'includes': [
+            '../build/host_jar.gypi',

[kjellander_webrtc, 2016/05/16 14:18:10]

The tests in Chromium uses includes build/android/test_runner.gypi as well here.
I think that's needed to generate the test wrapper scripts in
out/{Debug,Release}/bin, which may be required to run these tests easily on the
bots.

[sakal, 2016/05/17 08:01:25]

Done.

+          ],
+        },
       ],  # targets
     }],  # OS=="android"
   ],
 }