One repo test use testing-harness. Other ones require to have many maven stubs, and a Project with an ArtifactHandler (for language == java check) that is not (yet) supported bu maven-plugin-testing-harness.
shitty is a very simple way to it-test plugins. 2007/12/13, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > nicolas de loof wrote: > > > I tried to look at maven-eclipse-plugin tests and was really confused on > > it's testing framework complexity. > > Am I right in thinking that right now it's using the > "maven-plugin-testing-harness?" (I've never understood that either, > though I haven't tried very hard.) > > > What about moving thoses IT tests to src/it via the Shitty maven plugin > > ( http://mojo.codehaus.org/shitty-maven-plugin/usage.html) I allready > > used it and found it simple to use and very powerfull. > > We've already got at least two other mechanisms for running plugin IT > tests: maven-invoker-plugin and tests written in the maven-verifier style > like those in maven/core-integration-testing or > maven-surefire-plugin/trunk/surefire-integration-tests. (I think the > surefire tests might be a better example for comparison with the Eclipse > plugin.) > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/surefire/trunk/surefire-integration-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/surefire/its/TestSingleTest.java > http://tinyurl.com/3aqauu > > Can you help me understand the difference between SHITTY and those other > mechanisms? I'd really like to firmly advocate against proliferating more > IT frameworks, that we try to narrow down on just one or two. > > In particular, I don't see advantages over using SHITTY versus using > maven-invoker-plugin... I mean, I know they all do the same thing, but > m-i-p and SHITTY look *really* similar. Why use one over the other? > > Moreover, as you may have noticed in a nearby thread, jdcasey and I have > been discussing the merits and flaws of the maven-invoker-plugin vs. the > maven-verifier style of testing. I think everything we've said about the > m-i-p (for and against) would apply equally to SHITTY; I'm curious whether > you have thoughts about this. > > > The only difficulty AFAIK is to refactor the generated file verification > > to be used from validate.groovy scripts. > > I don't think this would be a difficulty if the tests were using the > maven-verifier style; I think they may also be a bit more comprehensible > that way, though I'll admit that I'm biased. > > -Dan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
