--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ivanov, Alexey A wrote: > > By the way, I've experimented with exclude.local > and build fails if there's no such file present. I > haven't succeeded to make the build ignore the > instruction if exclude.local doesn't exist. > > > > Ah. That was my fear... I assume we can simply do > it via property or such?
Better late than never, hopefully... though I realize this whole discussion may be a moot point by now, FTR, you could do (a little verbose): <available property="exclude.local.present" file="exclude.local" type="file" /> <fileset dir="foo"> <excludesfile name="exclude.local" if="exclude.local.present" /> </fileset> -Matt > > geir > > > > -- > > Alexey A. Ivanov > > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:45 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [testing] test exclude list: can't > we have incremental > >> exclusions? > >> > >> > >> Alexey Varlamov wrote: > >>> Geir, > >>> > >>> This sounds alarming - why do you need local > exclude list? > >> Because I may be testing something and I dont' > want that test to be run > >> for some reason. > >> > >>> This is > >>> error prone, you might forget about locally > excluded tests and then > >>> commit improperly tested. > >>> -1 until convincingly useful. > >> People are going to do it anyway - comment out > things locally. If I > >> screw up, and mask something, then everyone else > is going to find my error. > >> > >> I see no danger to this, and we make people's > lives easier. > >> > >> geir > >> > >> > >>> -- > >>> Alexey > >>> > >>> 24.11.06, Geir Magnusson Jr.<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): > >>>> And while you're at it, how about making > kind-and-gentle support for > >>>> local excludes such that I can have a file > >>>> > >>>> exclude.local > >>>> > >>>> which is my local exclusion list that > >>>> > >>>> a) will be svn-ignored and > >>>> > >>>> b) doesn't have to be there - so if a developer > hasn't created the file, > >>>> the build just keeps going... I *think* that > not having the file for an > >>>> <excludesfile> entry will let the build keep > going, but I'm not sure. > >>>> > >>>> geir > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >>>>> That works for me. It will only increase the > number of files if > >>>>> platforms have bugs, but it will make for > easier maintenance. > >>>>> > >>>>> We'll do the same in DRLVM too. > >>>>> > >>>>> geir > >>>>> > >>>>> Ivanov, Alexey A wrote: > >>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Recently test exclude lists were removed from > build.xml of the > >>>>>> corresponding module, and there were added > *six* files with excluded > >>>>>> tests. These files contain almost the same > list of files. The lists > >>>>>> are identical for swing module. I found 2 > differences for awt module > >>>>>> (there are still about 50 files names listed > in every of the exclude > >>>>>> lists). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why can't we use one 'exclude.all' file to > exclude tests which fail > >> on > >>>>>> every platform? It's an obvious optimization. > >>>>>> I've tested the approach of using several > exclude list files on > >>>>>> build.xml of swing module. It works just > fine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your comments? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Alexey. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- build.xml patch -------- > >>>>>> Index: build.xml > >>>>>> > =================================================================== > >>>>>> --- build.xml (revision 478584) > >>>>>> +++ build.xml (working copy) > >>>>>> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <fileset > dir="${hy.swing.src.test.api}/java/common"> > >>>>>> <include > name="**/*Test*.java"/> > >>>>>> + <excludesfile > name="./make/exclude.all" /> > >>>>>> <excludesfile > name="${exclude.file}" /> > >>>>>> </fileset> > >>>>>> </batchtest> > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Alexey A. Ivanov > >>>>>> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com
