cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [GUMP] Build Failure - cocoon-block-fop
Date Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:14:32 GMT
on 4/8/03 5:08 PM Stephan Michels wrote:

> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
>          Stephan Michels               EMail: stephan@apache.org
>          ICQ: 115535699                Tel: +49-030-314-21583
> ----+----|----+----|----+----|----+----|----+----|----+----|----+----|-|
> 
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> I'm for 3 ;-) That's reason why it called XP, and it forces you to
> keep the testcases uptodate.

Wait. You should keep an eye on what gump tries to do.

If you fail because you didn't pass the tests, the projects that depend
on you will not be run, meaning that another day will pass before they
know if something wrong happened to them.

I'd go for 2 since it's the balance between nagging in case something
bad happens (this is what XP is about!) and not stopping others to be
able to get nagged.

-- 
Stefano.



Mime
View raw message