maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Ease the usage of Failsafe
Date Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:11:21 GMT
I wrote it before I had my apache commit bit.

there are pluses and minuses to combining them.

For instance it is harder to configure different defaults for goals when
they are the same plugin.

But in any case, for either path changing the bindings to make them easier
to use will still require adjusting the default lifecycle and introducing
plugin bindings to the default lifecycle... we need to take care in doing
that

On 28 October 2014 17:22, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:

> If my memory serves me right, the failsafe plugin was conceived/developed
> by a third party -- perhaps codehaus. Then it was later adapted by Apache.
> I think this is maybe why the two haven't been merged (yet).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jeff Jensen <
> jeffjensen@upstairstechnology.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Integrating Failsafe in the same way as Surefire would be great for a
> lot
> > > of people I think.
> >
> >
> > I agree!
> >
> >
> > Personally, I wonder why we don't merge them.
> >
> >
> > I've wondered the same thing... is there a technical reason why it
> "won't"
> > or is difficult to make work?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Benson Margulies <
> bimargulies@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Personally, I wonder why we don't merge them.
> > >
> > > Failsafe adds some lifestyle phase bindings and then changes some
> > > defaults. Otherwise, it's a giant anti-DRY. Why not expand surefire to
> > > have the extra executions with shifted defaults for things like test
> > > class names?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Oliver B. Fischer
> > > <mailsink@swe-blog.net> wrote:
> > > > @Paul: Yes I think so or we find a way more convenient in this
> moment.
> > > >
> > > > @all: I think this shows perfectly why Failsafe should be integrated
> as
> > > > Surefire already is.
> > > >
> > > > Oliver
> > > >
> > > > Am 28.10.14 16:02, schrieb Paul Benedict:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks. Now I know when to use this. For my situation, which is
> > > >> integration
> > > >> testing against an existing database, I don't need to setup an
> > > >> environment;
> > > >> this explains why I never needed to use the plugin. There are other
> > > cases
> > > >> the plugin will be valuable, but I wonder if this is why most others
> > > stick
> > > >> with surefire. I guess programmers don't scratch unless there's an
> > itch.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> Paul
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> The answer is on the index page of the failsafe plugin [1].
> > > >>> "If you use the Surefire Plugin for running tests..."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> /Anders
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Paul Benedict <
> pbenedict@apache.org
> > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> (to
> > > >>> mailsink@swe-blog.net>
> > > >>> https://bitbucket.org/obfischer/bugreport-maven-failsafe.git
> > > >>> lot
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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