On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Michael McCandless <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe a simple compromise: could we make a new ant target, > "run-specific-test-for-certain", whose purpose was to run that test > and fail if no such test was not found? I think it's fine if this > only works at the "module" level, if ant makes it too hairy to > recurse. >
But is that really a compromise or will it only lead to increased complexity? I can see how i would implement this now, e.g. i'd just create a fileset of build/*pattern.class and fail if it was non-empty, and then invoke 'test' target. But I'm worried the simple compromise would lead us down a slippery slope, once we opened the can of worms, someone would eventually want it to validate that you didn't typo the -Dtestmethod too right? And someone might be upset that my simple solution fails always if they run clean first (since class file doesnt exist), or that it doesnt fail if the test is @Ignored, or @Nightly and they forgot to supply -Dtests.nightly, or @BadApples or @Slow, or throws an assumption always because it suppresses Lucene3xCodec and you supply -Dtests.codec=Lucene3x, or ... (it goes on and on and on). And one could argue tehse are all traps and its trappy if we dont fix it. :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
