not yet :) Is this holding up something (besides the other approach?)
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Do you have an alternative for us to consider yet?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> I do. I don't like the idea that we need to use the suites like this.
>>
>> I'm going to write a little ant task on the plane today (if I make it)
>> to deal with this, so please delay so we can compare the two solutions.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>>> Does anyone object to this going in?
>>>
>>> It is the XML exclusion list that was described a while ago. My
>>> recollection is that people thought that it was a good idea -- but just
>>> rechecking before I go ahead.
>>>
>>> This will only be applied to LUNI at the moment, but the technique is
>>> generally applicable.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> George Harley (JIRA) wrote:
>>>> Enable more LUNI tests to run using XML exclusion list
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Key: HARMONY-263
>>>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-263
>>>> Project: Harmony
>>>> Type: Improvement
>>>> Components: Classlib Environment: All
>>>> Reporter: George Harley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This issue suggests running the LUNI test suite with a JUnit
>>>> decorator that can exclude known test failures previously documented
>>>> in an XML file.
>>>>
>>>> The exclusion list is already in the tree along with its XML schema
>>>> (see jcltest-excludes.xml and excludes.xsd under
>>>> support/src/test/resources) although it may be more helpful to move
>>>> these to under the top level make directory. Similarly, the JUnit
>>>> decorator class tests.util.SomeTests is already in the tree under
>>>> support/src/test/java.
>>>> The forthcoming patches propose updating the "run.tests" in
>>>> modules/luni/make/common/build.xml to run a decorated version of the
>>>> LUNI AllTests suite. Perhaps rather than being an outright
>>>> replacement of the existing "run.tests" target this could be a peer
>>>> target called something like "run.tests.with.exclusions" ?
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully the exclusions list and the JUnit decorator class approach
>>>> suggested in this issue will be adopted in other modules besides LUNI.
>>>> Note that because this issue enables more LUNI tests to run, the
>>>> suite will take longer to complete and will run the java.net.* tests
>>>> that rely on network servers (HTTP, FTP, SOCKS) being available as
>>>> documented in the README included in HARMONY-57. If the servers are
>>>> not available then failures will result which, I suppose, forces us
>>>> to think about how we might bundle test servers into the tree and
>>>> have them auto-started as the tests are run.
>>>> Patches to follow...
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> George
>>>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
|