From dev-return-86810-apmail-ant-dev-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org Tue Feb 21 19:10:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 011B59311 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 18574 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 19:10:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 18531 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2012 19:10:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 18523 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2012 19:10:56 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:10:56 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [173.247.251.126] (HELO biz82.inmotionhosting.com) (173.247.251.126) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:10:48 +0000 Received: from [24.108.137.46] (port=55898 helo=[192.168.145.106]) by biz82.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rzv6X-0003TH-Qf; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:10:25 -0800 Message-ID: <4F43EC1E.3060405@callenish.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:10:22 -0800 From: Bruce Atherton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ant Developers List CC: Mansour Al Akeel Subject: Re: Ant 2 design (was Re: NIO 2.0 == Ant 2.0?) References: <87obtc1l08.fsf@v35516.1blu.de> <4F39559A.80003@callenish.com> <87haytzeoi.fsf@v35516.1blu.de> <4F3AAFD1.9050508@callenish.com> <0034F824-F1B4-4893-B835-65DC6226B4F7@hibnet.org> <4F3D5D39.1000603@callenish.com> <4F3D8BB9.3040301@callenish.com> <4F3EA58E.7060200@callenish.com> <4F3FF245.7070609@callenish.com> <4F400087.2040605@callenish.com> <4F402E2F.3030602@callenish.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz82.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ant.apache.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - callenish.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Unit testing has long been considered important for Ant. A published report a few years ago (can't find it now) showed our code coverage was among the highest of the open source projects that they reported on, as I recall. It has often happened that committers push back on code submissions asking that unit tests be included. Other types of tests are welcome too, though. Integration tests such as you suggest for plugins, functional tests across classes. My own preference in development generally is to create a regression test for each bug report before fixing it to make sure it doesn't come back to bite us. But of course all of that is up to the people who make code submissions. The overhead of maintaining a large testing suite in open source projects tends to limit them to unit tests + some other tests for expected pain points. > How easy is't to unit test additional plugins. When you rely a lot on > context, you need to create a similar context for testing. > Is't going to be easy ? Writing and testing tasks independently will > allow a lot of plugins to exist. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org