On 7/20/06, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manish Khettry wrote:
> And on the issue of using ant-- why not have ant
> targets in java/testing to run standard suites? much
> easier to get a developer to type "ant derbyall" and
> have it do the needful (setup classpath, invoke the
> right class) than what we do currently. This could be
> done right now and ease the pain for new developers
> trying to work with Derby.
Agreed, and I think that's one of the reasons to move to JUnit. I think
this will be easier with the tests in Junit. I would prefer to spend
time moving towards JUnit that spending time getting the existing
harness to be runnable from ant.
Dan.
Hear, hear.
And I think the name for the Wiki (killDerbyTestHarness) is just perfect.
It may not be a surprise, but I'm very interested in this. :-)
Re 3, I think we should start with converting tests where the output
is causing problems, for instance, any of the tests that show a
difference in output when testing with a different derby version for
client vs. server.
Or, like DERBY-1496 - where we end up with many canons.
Myrna
