Unfortunately they are just components mocks used in proper unit tests, they don't contain test methods, so 1) should be the better solution. Thanks Seb! Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 September 2010 09:24, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi guys, >> migrating to Junit4 I met a small issue that can be easily resolved in >> more that 1 way, I'd like to discuss with you how we want doing it: >> >> Tests in error: >> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.xmlrules.TestDigesterRulesSource) >> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.plugins.TestObject) >> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.TestObjectCreationFactory) >> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.xmlrules.TestObject) >> >> These classes are not unit test at all but rather classes to support >> tests, but because of the name pattern, surefire tries to execute them >> as unit test, but Junit4 fails because no test methods are present in >> these classes. >> >> AFAIK we can fix it in 2 ways: >> >> 1) renaming all the class name; >> 2) adding fake test methods >> >> I'm for 1, what do you suggest to proceed? > > Or one can: > > 3) Add exclusions to the POM. > - just added for completeness, as I prefer 1) > > However, if there is a useful test that can be added to a support > class, then 2) is the way to go. > >> Thanks in advance, best regards! >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Thanks a lot guys, >>> now the scope is much more clear to me. I'll proceed according to what >>> we agreed. >>> Have a nice day!!! >>> Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:22 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 31 August 2010 22:54, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Simone Tripodi >>>>> <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>> one more question: what about keeping or removing the Test >>>>>> classes/methods that just declare the Suite? AFAIK are not more >>>>>> needed... >>>>> <snip/> >>>>> >>>>> Don't have a strong opinion -- if someone wants to do it. >>>> >>>> Forgot to say I'm +1 on removing these. >>>> >>>> Just need to be careful in case there is a suite which is used to >>>> ensure that certain tests are run in a particular order. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, the main() and suite() methods are unnecessary, and it's >>>> too easy to add a test class and forget to add the class to the suite. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
