cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: [GUMP] Build Failure - cocoon-block-fop
Date Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:09:49 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>>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'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.

Go for 3.

A <depend> element in a gump project descriptor does *not* mean that the 
build was successful.  It merely means that all the jars declared in the 
descriptor are present after the build was run.

So... you can structure the ant targets so that you produce the jars, 
then run the tests.  If the jars are produced and the tests fail, then 
you will get nagged and projects which depend on you will get built.

Now... if you want *super* strict, make a dist target depend on the 
tests passing, and have that target copy the jars to a dist directory, 
and declare *that* copy as the ones that gump depends on.  Apparently 
that's what the jakarta-cactus team desires, and that's OK with me.

- Sam Ruby

View raw message