commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Digester] working toward a release
Date Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:27:01 GMT
Unfortunately they are just components mocks used in proper unit
tests, they don't contain test methods, so 1) should be the better
solution.
Thanks Seb!
Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/



On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 09:24, Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> migrating to Junit4 I met a small issue that can be easily resolved in
>> more that 1 way, I'd like to discuss with you how we want doing it:
>>
>> Tests in error:
>>  initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.xmlrules.TestDigesterRulesSource)
>>  initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.plugins.TestObject)
>>  initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.TestObjectCreationFactory)
>>  initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.xmlrules.TestObject)
>>
>> These classes are not unit test at all but rather classes to support
>> tests, but because of the name pattern, surefire tries to execute them
>> as unit test, but Junit4 fails because no test methods are present in
>> these classes.
>>
>> AFAIK we can fix it in 2 ways:
>>
>> 1) renaming all the class name;
>> 2) adding fake test methods
>>
>> I'm for 1, what do you suggest to proceed?
>
> Or one can:
>
> 3) Add exclusions to the POM.
> - just added for completeness, as I prefer 1)
>
> However, if there is a useful test that can be added to a support
> class, then 2) is the way to go.
>
>> Thanks in advance, best regards!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot guys,
>>> now the scope is much more clear to me. I'll proceed according to what
>>> we agreed.
>>> Have a nice day!!!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:22 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31 August 2010 22:54, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>>>> <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>> one more question: what about keeping or removing the Test
>>>>>> classes/methods that just declare the Suite? AFAIK are not more
>>>>>> needed...
>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't have a strong opinion -- if someone wants to do it.
>>>>
>>>> Forgot to say I'm +1 on removing these.
>>>>
>>>> Just need to be careful in case there is a suite which is used to
>>>> ensure that certain tests are run in a particular order.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, the main() and suite() methods are unnecessary, and it's
>>>> too easy to add a test class and forget to add the class to the suite.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message