incubator-nmaven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shane Isbell" <>
Subject Re: platform independence for the build
Date Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:58:26 GMT
Hi Brett,

The trunk integration tests are set up the same way as Maven and my
intention for the first release was just to test out the latest version of
Mono using .NET 2.0, as well as Microsoft 2.0. This would involve just
changing the environment on a limited number of configurations. Just to
note, a simple changing out of the path will not completely work on all
configurations, as Mono contains csc.exe (for .NET 1.1) and gmcs.exe (for
.NET 2.0).  Microsoft, on the other hand, has the versions in different
directories, which makes swapping out the paths easier. But you have to keep
in mind that for Microsoft .NET 3.0, the framework uses the same compiler as
.NET 2.0, but a different one for 1.1 and 3.5. Configurations can get a
little funky.

If we were only dealing with Mono or only Microsoft, I would be much more
confident that would could pull off doing the IT setup exactly the same as
Maven for all the needed configurations. I'm hoping that this is the case.
However, it's a little premature for me to have a good idea of how the
integration tests will work under multiple platforms now that we don't have
capability matching.  Right now we have options of creating scripts setting
up the paths, with modifications for each permutation of installations.
Another approach is something like the nmaven-settings file, which contains
the parameters and lets some component handle the paths. One thing that I do
like about a settings approach is that, on Windows, we can autogenerate the
settings file by inspecting the registry, meaning we only test what the
platform is capable of testing. We'll need to open up that to design and
comments when we get to that point.

If anyone on the list wants to take up on how IT testing should be done, go
for it. The issue: has been out
there a long time.

As part of the IT testing, we will need to create a .NET assembly (or find a
way to do it through Java) that handles the inspection of meta-data within
the project assembly. This is the only way to verify things like resource
generation, signing of assemblies, proper dependencies/references, and so
on. We may even be able to write this under the verifier.

We haven't yet addressed within the compiler interface implementation
the specifying of framework version for Mono, so I have even less of an idea
of exactly how it will work with the IT tests.


On Dec 16, 2007 1:32 PM, Brett Porter <> wrote:

> On 17/12/2007, at 8:19 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> > I agree on all the points. Can you post a bug about what is breaking?
> Will do.
> > This was the original motivation for the nmaven-settings file. It
> > allowed
> > changing the platform configuration to replace vendors, vendor
> > versions and
> > framework versions. I think that the general nmaven-settings file
> > concept is
> > the right approach for integration testing, it should just be used for
> > integration tests and should be non-obstrusive. This will likely
> > require
> > adding some component extensions that will allow modifying of the
> > working
> > directory of executables. This approach would avoid having to bring
> > in all
> > the capability matching components to support it.
> At this stage I would be happy with the integration tests just running
> under whatever the current execution environment is, like the normal
> NMaven execution would do. This is basically what the Maven ones do
> for now, based on the version of Maven in the path. You then switched
> your execution environment and re-run the test suite. Some tests are
> excluded on environments they are not suitable for. The integration
> test tools that are used for Maven should be able to be re-used in
> NMaven.
> Beyond that, I would just use whatever the toolchain capabilities are
> in Maven at the time to go towards the next step rather than adding
> anything specific for it in either NMaven or the integration tests.
> Is that in line with what you were thinking?
> - Brett

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message