Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: > > Also, it would be good if at least important bugs where "documented" in > terms of a failing unit test. > Yeah, that would be nice.
> > Failing tests that we don't care about anymore should be removed. > Failing tests of the kinds I described above makes a difference IMO. > Yes, I agree with you here - but in addition we should have no failing test for a release. > This behaviour doesn't work that well with test driven programming and > "failing test as bug report". Is there a possibility to indicate that a > test should be runned, but that the jar should br cretated even if it fails? I think currently you can only ignore the failure of all tests, but not of particular ones. But adding these things to m2 plugins should be easy. And I think these tests should pass for a release. Otherwise this means that we don't care about them and release anyway. > I added some rather time consuming tests while developing VPCs and > sitemap blocks. These tests are not really unit tests but rather > functional tests. As soon as we have the HtmlUnit tests working in trunk > (and I find some time), I will port the sitemap level test stuff that I > developed to HtmlUnit. Great!! Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
