Hi, Some of this improvements are in the invoker-plugin ;-). You can configure it to run faster [1]. All plugins have been configured as it and IMHO it's very faster. (I have to admit I don't know shitty and don't fi it has a such feature).
My question is : why do prefer shitty (the name ? :- ) . It's groovy vs bsh ? There is MINVOKER-7 which is here to support both languages. We could have both in our its. -- Olivier [1] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-invoker-plugin/examples/fast-use.html 2008/8/6 Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've used (and worked on) all the frameworks and also think SHITTY is > the closest. It needs a few improvements before it can be mainstream: > 1. It freaks out 2.1 because it circumnavigates the packaging and > installs the plugin that was packaged by the main lifecycle. The problem > is the data inside has a version that doesn't match what is expected > (MSHITTY-10) > 2. It needs local repo isolation (MSHITTY-12) > 3. It needs to copy the tests to target before running them, just to > avoid leaving turds in the source tree (MSHITTY-14) > 4. It needs a way to call back to java code in /test-classes/... I don't > want to be required to write everything in groovy...sure groovy might be > java but if I have some existing classes that do what I need, then I > want to use them directly. (I think this is already fixed but haven't > tried it) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:15 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Sane plugin testing > > My pick for the tool is STY. I think Brian has used it, and Jason > Dillon definitely has his opinion. > > The unit testing is different and the plugin-testing-harness is for > unit testing and I'm not concerned about that in this context. If you > look at the way Jason Dillon tests his plugins I think it's the best > example of how to do it. It's got some groovy bits but that's fine > with me. If I was to pick something today to move forward with it > would be STY and I would rename that now :-) > > On 6-Aug-08, at 8:40 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> +1 to all below. >> >> All the information I could find in January is here: >> > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Review+of+Plugin+Testing+Stra > tegies >> >> Please use that as a starting point. There has probably been stuff >> added to STY since. It generally seemed the best, but I would like >> to see it get some of the verifier functionality and the ability to >> trigger via a junit test. >> >> Thanks! >> >> - Brett >> >> On 07/08/2008, at 1:24 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think we've gotten to the point where we need to decide how we >>> are going to test plugins. We need to pick one of the frameworks, >>> settle on a pattern, and use that in the plugins otherwise there >>> will be no sane way to validate a set of plugins works against a >>> given version of Maven. What I'm thinking about here concretely is >>> testing all the plugins that we have here against Maven 2.1 to know >>> that we have not screwed something up so terribly that things like >>> the deploy plugin doesn't work, or whatever. >>> >>> I think how this starts is that we: >>> >>> 1) Pick one of the tools >>> 2) Create a touchstone project that can be expanded where necessary >>> for any given plugin so that we have a baseline project against >>> which to test >>> 3) Pick a standard profile name for invoking this test >>> >>> This way we create a standard hook point for a larger harness to >>> get hold off. We can check out sources and create an aggregator POM >>> with the given profile activated to test a set of plugins. I don't >>> know yet what the best way would be to share a touchstone project >>> (and that is not to say we won't need different projects but we >>> have to start with a baseline), but once we start this we can also >>> start plugging in other things like integration testing that >>> includes things like coverage or whatever else. >>> >>> I think the key in moving forward is getting 1-3 sorted out so >>> we're not using 5 frameworks and testing plugins with N different >>> patterns where it's impossible to hook into for larger scale >>> testing. I think this is the only way forward to validate that a >>> set of plugins work against a given version of Maven which is vital >>> information to know before releasing 2.1. >>> >>> For integration testing I have found the SHITTY plugin (we would >>> simply have to change that name, sorry Jason Dillon) to be the most >>> useful and feature rich. Should be relatively simple to create a >>> test project, and a profile name (run-its like the core ITs). Then >>> we figure out how to share and version the test project to create a >>> stable baseline. I chatted about this briefly in IRC with Benjamin >>> and wanted to get the information out. I think it's vital to get >>> this rolling if we want to roll out a 2.1-alpha-1 with some degree >>> of confidence we have toasted a bunch of plugins due to >>> incompatibilities in the core. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Jason van Zyl >>> Founder, Apache Maven >>> jason at sonatype dot com >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good >>> people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. >>> >>> -- Paul Graham >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > jason at sonatype dot com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction. > > -- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kirosawa > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
