commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [VFS] tests and project status
Date Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:43:56 GMT
Is anyone actively working on commons-vfs?  I have spent the last week  
making trunk actually run the unit tests that use a local file system  
with Maven 2 as well as getting it to run those pointed at a remote  
repository if the url property is defined in settings.xml.  I have  
also added webdav using Jackrabbit and removed the webdav using Slide  
that was in the sandbox.  I've still got some more things to do, but I  
would like to check this into trunk.  I'm not sure who to ask for  
"approval" from since the last message regarding VFS in October  
indicated there weren't many (any?) active developers.


On Jan 1, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:

> I'm working on commons vfs trying to implement webdav using the  
> Jackrabbit client. I finished coding it but before trying to test  
> that I wanted to test the existing providers to make sure I have a  
> basic setup working. I've looked at 
>  and a number of things don't make sense to me.
> 1. It references test-data/read-tests. No such directory exists in  
> subversion. Instead, the directory is actually named test-data/ 
> basedir, which seems like a mistake.
> 2. It describes doing things with ant or the RunTest class, but the  
> build mvn install works fine, although many of the unit tests being  
> run are incorrectly set up (see below).
> 3. test-data/write-tests doesn't exist. It should be present in  
> subversion with a dummy file so that mvn test will just work, or it  
> should be created automatically when running the build.
> 4. None of the provider test cases actually extend Junit TestCase,  
> so nothing happens when you try to run them.
> 5. Changing AbstractProviderTestConfig to extend  
> AbstractProviderTestCase, which seems like what should happen  
> generates an error since AbstractProviderTestCase declares  
> getBaseTestFolder to be protected while it is also declared in the  
> ProviderTestConfig interface, which means it has to be public in  
> AbstractProviderTestCase.
> 6. Fixing all this and then running mvn test gets all kinds of  
> errors, even on some of the providers that should work - like the  
> local provider.
> I started all this on vfs trunk and noticed that it seems to be for  
> an as yet unreleased 2.0 so I went an  looked at the 1.x branch but  
> it doesn't look a whole lot different.
> Do these tests really run?
> Should I be working on trunk (2.0) vs vfs-1-trunk (1.x)? Is there  
> any real difference between them?
> Ralph

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

View raw message