ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse Glick <jesse.gl...@sun.com>
Subject Re: <junit> and junit4 (long)
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 19:20:00 GMT
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> 3. enhancements to junit
>> 
>> -a method "isFailure" on the assertion failure classes, for 
>> checking (through reflection in ant) for failures vs errors.
> 
> Yes, that would be handy.  But they shouldn't have dropped the 
> difference between errors and failures in the first place.

Whatever you think of the decision to drop that distinction (personally 
I am on the fence about it), the job of the task is to provide a wrapper 
for the tool the way it is intended to be used, so for junit4 that means 
report output should not differentiate between the two.

I *did* include differentiation in the patch I did in Ant head. But that 
is only because the existing junit3-based reporting framework counts 
failures and errors separately, and it would be confusing for one or the 
other column to always be zero.

-J.

-- 
jesse.glick@sun.com  x22801  netbeans.org  ant.apache.org
       http://google.com/search?q=e%5E%28pi*i%29%2B1


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message