xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>
Subject Re: Fop's build process
Date Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:16:03 GMT
i would suggest you simply create a new target that invokes tests in the
fashion you propose; however, i would not want to replace the current
targets with this new target, or at least not do so without considerable
usage having passed;

i personally like having different targets, particularly when creating new
tests or debugging regressions in tests, since that allows me to effectively
subset the tests from command line based on which targets i select;

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:57 PM, mehdi houshmand <med1985@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
> Since there's been overwhelming support for this, I'll throw another
> thought out there for people to consider. While looking at these
> tests, it seems logical to me to change the way FOP invokes the JUnit
> tests, so that rather than invoking test-suites, the build.xml,
> invokes ALL classes that match the regex "*TestCase.java".
> The benefit of this would be that if someone forgets to add a unit
> test to a test suite, the test is still invoked, but more importantly,
> it would greatly simplify the build.xml. This would also mean that the
> layout/area tree/IF test-suites will have to change to take advantage
> of the JUnit4 parametrised test system. But that's not difficult to
> do, and quite frankly I don't like that they depend on so many obscure
> system parameters, I appreciate that that's the only way to
> parametrise tests in JUnit3, but this gives us an opportunity to
> improve it. This also has the added benefit that people can run these
> tests in their IDE without having to inject system parameters.
> I welcome any thoughts on this, I have not have appreciated all the
> use cases. I also intend on leaving the test-suites that are already
> there, so that should people want to invoke these tests, they can.
> Mehdi
> On 14 September 2011 10:36, Peter Hancock <peter.hancock@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Mehdi for considering this, thats a +1 from me.
> >
> > This will require some work.  A quick search on the subject of 3 to 4
> > migration yielded quite a few guides that pointed out some pitfalls.
> > A general recommendation, for instance, is not to mix JUnit 3 and 4
> > conventions, e.g. est classes should not extend TestCase as this will
> > instruct the framework to adopt JUnit 3 behavior.
> >
> > Unfortunately I could not find a defacto migration guide on the JUnit
> > site, and I have no good reason to link to any other guide without
> > evaluating  in detail.  If another member of our community has made
> > the transition on another project and can offer advice, or perhaps can
> > I point us to useful resources, this would be most welcomed!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:16 AM, mehdi houshmand <med1985@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Guys,
> >>
> >> I want to propose an upgrade of our test system to JUnit 4, the
> >> benefits of upgrading can be found on plenty of blogs [1], but I just
> >> wanted to get a feel of what everyone thought? For those that aren't
> >> familiar with JUnit 4, it is backward compatible, so that may
> >> alleviate some migration worries.
> >>
> >> [1]
> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/fabianocruz/archive/2006/06/junit_4_you.html
> >>
> >> Mehdi
> >>
> >

View raw message