ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [antunit] doco error WAS @Before/AfterClass analogues
Date Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:05:25 GMT
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Matt Benson <> wrote:

> You mention that properties, etc. are low-cost enough
> for setup; obviously so.  My concern was actually for
> compilation of support classes (e.g. testing <java>);
> I would hate to keep compiling and blowing away a
> bunch of classes in each setUp/tearDown.  Maybe we
> should use before/After[Tests as Peter suggested], and
> document that these should be limited to effects that
> live beyond the scope of the Project instance (i.e.
> FS, DB, etc.)?

I wasn't arguing against before/afterTests at all.  You said yourself
that it should be used for bigger cost setup code and compiling would
certainly fit in.

As for naming, I do have a long history of giving bad advice, so I
kept silent.  NUnit has Setup for the per test setup methods and
TestFixtureSetup for per class setup, same for teardown.


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

View raw message