Maybe catch an expected RuntimeException, or change an assertTrue to an assertFalse, etc.?
Phil Steitz wrote:
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
+1, enough time has now passed for JUnit3.8 to be OK
Stephen
Done. The enum test remains broken, however under JDK 1.4.2.
The test that is failing was added to demonstrate the problem referenced in PR 23374. Since it fails (actually just fails to demonstrate "broken" behavior) under 1.4.2, I would like to remove it. Any objections to this?
Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Steitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 8:45 PM Subject: [lang] JUnit version, broken tests
Some tests (/builder/ShortPrefixToStringStyleTest, ArrayUtils.Test) have been been added/modified to require Junit 3.8. I have no problem with this; but we need to modify the dependency in project.xml for the maven build to work in this case. Any objections to this change?
I am seeing the following failure in the builder tests:
Testcase: testNestedBroken took 0.006 sec FAILED expected:<0> but was:<3> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<0> but was:<3> at
org.apache.commons.lang.enum.EnumTest.testNestedBroken(EnumTest.java:432)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39
)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl
.java:25)
I am using Sun Linux JDK 1.4.2
Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
