cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [GUMP] Build Failure - cocoon-block-fop
Date Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:14:42 GMT


Stefano Mazzocchi wrote, On 08/04/2003 16.04:
...
> So adding tests makes perfect sense, while adding documentation or dist
> targets does not: if our documentation fails, the code dependency of
> others projects will remain valid, so we should not impede others from
> being able to build on us.

Usually there can be three methods of doing this.

1 - One, which works with projects that are in alpha state, makes junit 
tests not fail, ie failonerror="false", so that a report can be 
generated and browsed. Same with distros.

2 - Another is to make a cocoon-test project, and have that depend on 
cocoon and unit test it. Thus the unit test can pass and cocoon give the 
jar. This is quite common for Gump, as you see from the project definitions.

3 - Finally there is super-strict mode, where a project doesn't want to 
give it's jar if not all tests pass. Not usually recomended.

I'd go with 1 for unit tests, and eventually use regexps to nag on test 
failures if we need them later on.

For functional tests like the anteater ones, case 2 is the best.

> Please, keep the above in mind as you modify those dependencies.


-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message