Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 35970 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2006 20:48:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Oct 2006 20:48:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 82901 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2006 20:49:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 82571 invoked by uid 500); 28 Oct 2006 20:49:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 82560 invoked by uid 99); 28 Oct 2006 20:49:09 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:49:09 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [144.140.82.153] (HELO omta01ps.mx.bigpond.com) (144.140.82.153) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:48:56 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [139.168.168.6]) by omta01ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20061028204833.BAFM8871.omta01ps.mx.bigpond.com@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:48:33 +0000 Message-ID: <4543C225.7040602@asert.com.au> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 06:48:37 +1000 From: Paul King User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: FW: antunit branch for 1.6.x compatibility References: <6E9C82D532D127439D866C0425182770028C649F@repbex01.amer.bea.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>> 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. > > Paul is subscribed here as well, haven't seen him chime in, yet. > > It is mostly a question of how much ongoing work it would take when we > add new features to AntUnit. Which parts of AntUnit would you use? > Only the assertions or the tasks and listeners as well? I am listening but still pondering what the best path is before making further suggestions. WebTest has a focus on Acceptance Testing and has more extensive reporting than e.g. JUnit. AntUnit currently has sufficient listener capability and infrastructure to align it closely with JUnit-style tests. WebTest's steps are just Ant Tasks with a context. So it would not be impossible to make WebTest's verification steps AntUnit assertions with a context. It would be an interesting way to move forward but maybe it isn't critical at the moment. See the thread 'Property expansion notification interesting?' over the last few weeks to see one of the things we would need to solve first. I'll keep pondering, Paul. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org