Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 25749 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 17:38:42 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 23 May 2003 17:38:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 4753 invoked by uid 50); 23 May 2003 17:40:54 -0000 Date: 23 May 2003 17:40:54 -0000 Message-ID: <20030523174054.4752.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org> From: bugzilla@apache.org To: dev@ant.apache.org Cc: Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 20194] New: - PlainJUnitResultFormatter produces poor output X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20194 PlainJUnitResultFormatter produces poor output Summary: PlainJUnitResultFormatter produces poor output Product: Ant Version: 1.5.3 Platform: Sun OS/Version: Solaris Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: Other Component: Optional Tasks AssignedTo: dev@ant.apache.org ReportedBy: steve.millington@sun.com The results of a failing JUnit test run from ANT are poor. The Ant JUnit task formatter produces the following: Testcase: testAccessibleComponent3 took 0.474 sec FAILED TerminalAccessibleComponent.getAccessibleAt() NYI junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: TerminalAccessibleComponent.getAccessibleAt() NYI at bean.accessibility.Base.testAccessibleComponent3(Base.java:116) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) at support.EnhancedTestCase.runTest(EnhancedTestCase.java:25) Testcase: testAccessibleComponent3Testcase: testChildren1 took 0.025 sec It is the last line of this that is problematic. Basically, when a test fails, there is a missing newline from the end of its output. The result is that the start of the output of the next test is put on the same line. This results in output that is *very* hard to read.