I created a few integration-tests for the jar-plugin using the Maven Embedder as described in http://maven.apache.org/developers/committer-testing-plugins.html under both maven-it-plugin and maven-plugin-test-plugin (I didn't use any testing plugins, just the install-plugin). Add the Embedder to your list of testing utilities.
I think a lot of things could be improved in the testing strategies. The bugs that I fixed in the jar-plugin took me less than an hour to complete, but creating the testcases to me about three days before I finally found the above mentioned page. Maybe I've missunderstood something completely, but as far as I understand some tests are auctually testing the result from the previous build? /Johan 2007/12/12, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You forgot the maven-plugin-testing-harness ;-) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Fabulich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:07 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Invoker vs. Verifier? > > John Casey wrote: > > > What you're seeing as overlap is a mixture of concerns in the invoker > > plugin. The verifications beanshell really needs to be migrated out to > > > some sort of proper integration-testing plugin (or, even better, a > > plugin that unites invoker and verifier under a common > > configuration...then extend the verifier with the invoker's beanshell > > functionality). Regardless, the invoker plugin can be used for any > sort > > of scenario where you need to fork a new maven process. I've > personally > > used it to proxy secondary builds in some sticky client use cases. You > > > don't have to use the beanshell script to verify the build, it's just > an > > [admittedly confusing] option. > > As I've remarked before, I find it weird that various Maven developers > have gone and written _plugins_ to do Maven integration testing. > > Integration tests are just tests; we know how to write/run tests using > real test frameworks like JUnit and TestNG. Those frameworks are pretty > > cool; you can do stuff like rerun failures-only, graph results over > time, > write data-driven tests, etc. You can even use them to write tests in > scripting languages like Groovy, BeanShell, etc. All that AND you get > excellent IDE integration. > > More generally, while I certainly see the value of a > maven-invoker-plugin, > I don't expect that you'd want that to be the "normal" way people would > write Maven integration tests. > > Right now there are four things: maven-verifier, maven-verifier-plugin > (no > relation!), maven-invoker, and maven-invoker-plugin. > > I think I'd like to advocate ripping out the bulk of maven-verifier and > make it depend entirely on maven-invoker. Since maven-verifier is so > confusingly named, I think I'd want to take the good bits out and put > them > in maven-integration-test-helper (which is what maven-verifier really > is, > anyway). > > More controversially (?) I'd like to deprecate the idea of writing > *tests* > using the maven-invoker-plugin, instead preferring to write them in Java > > (or BeanShell, I'm easy!) running them using a "real" test framework. > maven-invoker-plugin should still be used for spawning sub-builds in > those > delightful cases where that's necessary. > > Thoughts? > > -Dan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ____________________________ Johan Kindgren Acrend AB Phone: +46 (0) 733-58 36 60 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.acrend.se --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
