Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Jörg Schaible a écrit : >> Hi Dimitri, >> >> Dimitri Pourbaix wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> I checked one of the tests and I assume that all of the above are JUnit >>>> 4.x tests ...? My Ant/lib contains only JUnit 3.8.x. Should JUnit 4.x be >>>> provided with the build or with Ant? >>> When I was updating SVD, I noticed that parts of the tests were 3.x syntax >>> whereas other 4.x (way easier to use I think). I would advocate for the >>> generalisation of Junit 4.x tests whenever possible. >> Well, I think no one is against this, unless somebody does the work ;-) >> However, this is IMHO no requirement especially now for the release. > > I think it would be better to update to latest Junit. I'll do it after > 2.1 is out. It will take some time as we have more than 2000 tests now. > I am certainly not going to stand in the way of this if you want to burn the cycles to do it, but I really see little point in it. We should be able to fix whatever is wrong with the Ant build to make sure that it recognizes both sorts of tests.
<side-rant>The whole @test nonsense seems *really* silly to me. I kiss my lucky stars that no one got the bright idea to do @getter and @setter. There is nothing wrong with coding by convention and when there *is* a convention, mucking things up by adding annotations that impact runtime performance is, well...silly. </side-rant> > Luc > >> - Jörg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
