On Thu, 02 Mar 2006, Jesse Glick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kev Jackson wrote: >> That would certainly be optimal. (+1 for seperate task) > > If others agree, should the existing 4 support in <junit> be > reverted?
I feel that the changes between JUnit3 and JUnit4 warrant a new task, putting even more modifications into the current task (adding a new JUnitResultFormatter subclass for ignored tests, for example) will make it even more convoluted than it currently is. > My main concern is that making it a separate task would require > people to change their build scripts gratuitously. True. > I do think that whatever form the support takes, it should be in the > standard Ant distro. The drawback here is that it is tied to Ant's release schedule. It will take months for your latest cahnges to become available to a wider audience. A separate Ant library would allow a much shorter release cycle. > 2. Timeout failures; similar to #1, though this could probably be > skipped (just treat as a general failure with appropriate > message). I'd expect this to be an error like any other error. > 3. Test failed to throw expected exception; similar to #2. A failure. > 4. Display only a "failure" count and no "error" count (if this is > in fact desirable - does not appear to be consensus) 8-) > 6. Sorting of tests (e.g. by last fail time) - not clear to me if > this is something an Ant task should address. Is this something JUnit4 offers or something that users would like to see? > Don't we already presume at least 1.2 to compile (and run) for Ant > 1.6+ generally? We do. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]