ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <>
Subject Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility
Date Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:33:04 GMT
Vladimir Egorov wrote:
> Sorry for a bit of a messy entry into the list. I did not realize that
> using html email could be a problem. Thanks Stephan for pointing this
> out.
>>> My inquiry is in connection with TestLogic project on CodeShare.
>> Could you please expand a little on TestLogic for the rest of the Ant
> developers?
> TestLogic is an initiative by BEA Systems Inc. Tools team to provide an
> open source testing framework for the enterprise. The flavor of this
> effort is to provide the glue that would tie together existing
> frameworks (e.g. JUnit) in a consistent manageable way. Over time, we
> want to cover the breadth of the enterprise testing needs, based on our
> knowledge of BEA Systems Inc. testing needs. The project is so far a
> private project on CodeShare. We are planning to open source when we
> reach some point of maturity and can get clearance, hopefully within 2-4
> month.

That's interesting. Have you seen the work I'm doing with deployment of 
junit3/4/testng+other frameworks and merging of results using (a) a 
uniform serialization of results for over-RMI comms, and (b) some 
evolving XML format. For (b) I've got marked up XHTML, but am thinking 
of how to use Atom to integrate results, a polling app and log data:

Uniformity of both the java format and the xml output would be very 
beneficial, and putting the stuff into antunit and <junit> and <junit4> 
is part of my goal. One place needs to be the root repository (with a 
license everyone likes i.e. apache), with reuse everywhere. This causes 
trouble with java serialization (you cannot repackage stuff), but would 
work for XML formats.

>>> To support writing tests in Ant, we want to offer a library of
>>> asserts. We want start with antunit asserts, and have the ability to
>>> enhance (e.g.  add new ones). Unlike AntUnit, we don't require
>>> asserts to throw AssertionFailedException.
>>> Do you have any suggestions for us?
>> If there is enough interest we could certainly still create a 1.6
>> compatible branch.
> From this posting I got a reply from Paul King, who explained that
> similar asserts are being used in WebTest project and that he would be
> interested to learn the outcome of this discussion.
>> How long do you expect TestLogic to stick with 1.6.5?
> We have recently migrated from 1.6.2 to 1.6.5, and we are being told
> that migrating to 1.7 is not in the near future.

ah, well, you get to miss out on the test format improvements I'm 
planning for Ant1.7.1 and up :)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message