Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
 designates 209.85.200.174 as permitted sender)
Message-Id: <08ED70EE-F085-4935-8D1E-18B405743EAE@dslextreme.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: [VFS] tests and project status
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:37:54 -0800
From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>

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 http://commons.apache.org/vfs/testserver.html 
  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: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org