db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Junit ant target - why use antcall?
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:54:57 GMT

The way junit test runs via ant are setup is a single target 
junit-oneclass and multiple antcall calls to that target, each supplying 
a different test class.

I wondering if there's a good reason to do it this way? The ant junit 
task can take multiple <test> arguments which would achieve exactly the 
same effect.

E.g. (extract)

<junit printsummary="on"
      fork="yes" forkmode="perTest"
      jvm="${derby.junit.jvm}"
      showoutput="yes"
      dir="junit_${derby.junit.timestamp}/testout"
       errorproperty="tests.failed"
       failureproperty="tests.failed">
       <formatter type="xml"/> 	 	
   	
<test name="org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.tools._Suite"
   	 	todir="junit_${derby.junit.timestamp}"/>
<test 
name="org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.jdbcapi.JDBCDriversEmbeddedTest"
     	 todir="junit_${derby.junit.timestamp}"/>

etc.

This would be a more natural way of writing the ant file and would allow 
the "tests.failed" property to work. I added that the other day but it 
doesn't work because a property set in an antcall is not visible to the 
callee.

Dan.


Mime
View raw message