Why not leave them in the exclude list?
Also, what do we need from Jetty? Greg and Jan are really great
people, and may be willing to help us out, especially when they find
out that the World's First Implementation of Open Source Java needs
it :)
geir
On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:50 AM, Alexei Zakharov wrote:
that's not a bad idea, we can find all TODOs in exclude lists rather
than src code.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean.
Thanks,
2007/3/1, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Thanks Alexei,
that's not a bad idea, we can find all TODOs in exclude lists rather
than src code.
I'll try if no one object.
On 2/28/07, Alexei Zakharov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> IIRC we have agreed that commenting out test code is not the best
> possible solution. Can we just split off proxy-related tests into a
> separate test class (<something>ProxyTest for example) and then put
> this new class to exclude list?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 2007/2/27, Tony Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hello all,
> > I have been working on moving out the exclude tests in
java.net these
> > days. Some of them need a proxy server. IIRC we have adopted
jetty to
> > avoid external server dependencies before, but unfortunately, the
> > ProxyHandler of Jetty has not been implemented yet. So I
purpose to
> > comment out the proxy related testcases and move out the test
class
> > from exclude list. I'll add a TODO in the code and wait for the
> > upcoming new version of Jetty.
> >
> > Another way is tha find out another tool to set up a proxy
server. In
> > my opinion, we'd better not import another dependency if
possible. And
> > if it is not an embedding server, we have to write some ugly
code in
> > order to run test automatically.
> >
> > suggestions?concerns?
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel ESSD
