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 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:54:39 GMT
Hi again,
I've been fixing PMD-CPD-Checkstyle errors, by now PMD warnings could
be considered trivial since they're detected on Deprecated
methods/constructor, there is a CPD warning I'd like to fix:

File	                                                                Line
org/apache/commons/digester/SetNextRule.java	198
org/apache/commons/digester/SetRootRule.java	191

SetNextRule[1] class looks like to SetRootRule[2], what do you think
about adding an abstract class that generalizes the behavior of both
classes?
Thanks in advance, have a nice day!!!
Simo

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/digester/SetNextRule.java
[2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/digester/SetRootRule.java

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



On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> just to give you a brief recap of the completed actions:
>> - tests have been migrated to JUnit 4;
>> - project structure has been moved to default Maven archetype structure;
>> - ant build & config have been removed;
>> - whole documentation has been moved to site, in the xdoc format.
>>
> <snip/>
>
> Great :-)
>
>
>> There still is the 'examples' dir that's using ant to build the small
>> subprojects, what do you think on moving them too to a maven build?
> <snap/>
>
> I don't think thats a requirement for the next release. I also don't
> think we want to introduce a multi-module m2 build for digester, so
> best to keep that build on its own (even if moved to m2) as it is now.
>
> In effect -- if someone wants to do it, sure.
>
> -Rahul
>
>
>> Thanks in advance, have a nice day :)
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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


Mime
View raw message