Any chance one of you guys could also incorporate my simple patch to the FTP task that adds the "initialcommand" attribute?
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34853 Thanks, John This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally. Steve Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/05/2005 08:38:39 PM: > Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: > > Steve Cohen wrote: > > > >> > >> However, it does seem to me that this test case is rather incomplete, > >> and could be beefed up in several ways to test these and other recent > >> features of commons-net which are not being tested here. > >> > > Feel free to expand this test. I created this test to check that the > > pattern selection features of the ftp task work, when I refactored it. > > Makes sense, I suppose. You would presume that commons-net has its own > tests (indeed it does) and therefore only test the interaction with Ant. > > > > >> I guess what I am asking is what the scope of these tests is. Who > >> runs them, when, and how? (Do they change the password as I had to?). > >> > > I believe almost no one runs these tests, except committers who are > > changing the ftp task. To make this test work in gump, there would be > > the need to install on the gump machine a standard ftp server used to > > run the tests. > > In commons-net we have tests that ARE part of gump and can be run > anywhere and then we have tests that are NOT part of gump (we call them > functional tests) since they depend on various ftp servers over which we > have no control. These tests are only run manually, although they > should pass, assuming the server is up, from anywhere, without > modification or -D definition. (they use anonymous FTP). Do you think > it would make sense to add such tests here? Or should I just be testing > that the new attributes are accepted by Ant properly? > > I am eager to test the time zone feature in Ant, which virtually > requires an external ftp server and could be very useful in Ant. The > other new features, concerning languages other than English, etc., are, > in my experience harder to test because there are so few servers that > work that way anymore. Almost all the publicly accessible ftp servers > have converted to English month names. I know because I looked all over > the place and could find not a single one that didn't! I presume that > the non-English server complaints we occasionally hear about concern > various private intra-company servers that use older ftp servers. If it > ain't broke, don't fix it. Apparently older ftp servers actually called > "ls" and the newer ones don't. This will become even more moot as > all-numeric timestamps become more prevalent in unix ftp servers - I > recently learned that Debian is now shipping this way and hope this a > wave of the future. > > > > > >> I've also committed install.html to indicate that from here forward, > >> commons.net >= 1.4.0 is required. > >> > > If commons.net 1.4.0 is required, is it not a big constraing for the > > 1.6.4 release ? > > Indeed. I was proceeding on Stefan's instructions to put it into the > HEAD and have a vote later about adding them to 1.6.4. If the Ant team > does not feel confident about requiring 1.4.0 so soon this vote will fail. > > > >> I am working on revised manual page for the ftp task which has > >> optional new attributes but I want to tweak that a bit more. > >> > >> > > +1 > > Antoine > > > Steve > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
