Steve Cohen wrote:
Really, I wrote a few tests with a very limited purpose to check that pattern matching selection of files was still working after having changed the scanning of remote directories to go directly to the include patterns specified by the build file, instead of scanning the whole remote directory.
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.
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 did not have the know-how and the ideas how to write better 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?
Yes, it makes sense to add such tests there. It allows to check that the whole software stack (ant + commons-net) is working.
Or should I just be testing that the new attributes are accepted by Ant properly?I do not know whether it is possible to test that the new attributes are accepted by ant properly without also running tests against concrete ftp server instances.
I th
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.
1.6.4 compared to 1.6.3 should just be a bug fix release, so it does not sound to me in scope to require suddenly a new version of commons-net.
Cheers,
Antoine
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
