I agree with all of your responses, I was being a bit paranoid ;-) What about Java versions: 1.2 vs 1.3 vs 1.4? Hopefully a released component has been tested on all. Perhaps this should be part of the release procedure: "Make sure the build runs on JDK a, b, and c". I am not sure we have such a guarantee, at least it is not advertised in the release notes or on the web presence for a component: "These unit tests pass on JRE a, b, and c"-type of statement. Sometimes we catch a 1.4 API call in [lang] and we clean that up, good. But what about 1.3 vs 1.2? Far fetched perhaps but it would be good to know for sure.
Thanks for your patience, :-) Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: __matthewHawthorne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 09:46 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang][codec] Sanity checking a client project build > > You're definitely not nuts, but perhaps a little paranoid ;). > > From what I've seen, it seems to be a prereq of any released commons > component that ALL unit tests must pass. This is one of the reasons > that I've never had a doubt about creating a dependency on any project > from commons. > > So, while invoking these tests from your own project does seem safe, it > also seems unnecessary. The [lang] developers (which of course includes > you) are already ensuring that all of the tests pass and that the code > is solid. > > Now if you're depending on the CVS HEAD, that's a different story. But > even in that case, running the tests whenever you do a cvs update seems > to be enough. > > Although, releasing a unit test jar is an interesting idea. > > Summary: A released version of any project passes all tests. Why create > the extra work for yourself? > > > > > Gary Gregory wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'll start this topic on [lang] and [codec] only since I am active here. > > > > I am considering adding to the unit test suite of /my/ project the unit > > tests of 3rd party libraries. Why do this? As a simple sanity check. Our > > project uses [lang], [codec], [pool], [cli], [collections], Xerces, > Xalan. I > > would like the confidence added to /my/ project, that all of these > pieces > > are working as advertised and that no side effects exists. > > > > This is why I would like to suggest that [lang] and [codec] deliver > their > > unit tests in jar files instead of plain source. > > > > A secondary point I have not thought through is how do you know which > tests > > to invoke. The build.xml file contains a test target which I could > invoke > > from my build file but I like to use the Ant/Junit reporting feature. I > do > > not want to impose this requirement on the build.xml file for a project > of > > course. > > > > Any thought? Am I nuts? Paranoid? > > > > Thanks, > > Gary > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
