Hi, The reasons I put the integration tests module as a submodule directly into myfaces core was that
1) if you checkout core, you get the whole integration-testing stuff too (like in every maven-plugin project where the integration-tests are in src/it/) 2) the sub-module can be added via profile and thus has no impact on normal builds and the release procedure (b/c it does not need to be released) 3) it's very easy to run a build and execute the integration-tests (just one maven command) 4) in your IDE, the integration-test webapps will automatically be runnable (without any further configuration) and thus be easy to debug Unfortunately, this solution does not fix the problem of running some integration-tests for multiple versions (as you guys pointed out). We (I) need to look into that, but I would really like to keep this stuff as a submodule of core. Regards, Jakob 2011/7/29 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: > imo we should keep it simple. > #1 it should be as simple as possible to execute the tests > #2 tests for the jsf api should be executed with the first possible version > as well as "all" later versions (e.g. 2.0.2 -> 2.1.0+ -> 2.2.0+ ...). > a solution which meets both will get my +1 > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > 2011/7/29 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> >> >> Hi >> >> I think there are many ways to do it. For example, you can play with >> source paths and maven profiles. For example the following code is >> valid: >> >> <profiles> >> <profile> >> <id>tests-jsf-21</id> >> <activation> >> <property> >> <name>jsf</name> >> <value>21</value> >> </property> >> </activation> >> <build> >> <plugins> >> <plugin> >> <artifactId>maven-war-plugin</artifactId> >> <configuration> >> <webResources> >> <resource> >> <directory>src/main/webapp21</directory> >> </resource> >> </webResources> >> </configuration> >> </plugin> >> </plugins> >> </build> >> </profile> >> >> You can include source, resource, or webappp directories based on a >> profile. >> >> We can do trick about run in for jsf 2.0, create an specific task for >> hudson and "playing" with the profiles. Note we don't need to generate >> any artifacts or even release them. The only thing we need is run them >> periodically. >> >> The problem about have the code in different locations is the same we >> had with shared module: to compile one we need compile the other one. >> That's other reason why I'm proposing move everything instead keep two >> copies. >> >> regards, >> >> Leonardo >> >> 2011/7/29 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>: >> > @jakob: +1 >> > regards, >> > gerhard >> > >> > http://www.irian.at >> > >> > Your JSF powerhouse - >> > JSF Consulting, Development and >> > Courses in English and German >> > >> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> > >> > >> > >> > 2011/7/29 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I would like to do it exactly like we did it in MyFaces-Test, however >> >> not exactly like you're proposing. As you said, MyFaces-Test keeps the >> >> most code in the 1.2 module and the 2.0 module just takes what it >> >> needs. But what you're proposing is to move all integration-tests to >> >> 2.1 and also run it with 2.0 in some kind of way.. >> >> >> >> I would like to have the 2.0 integration-tests really in the 2.0 >> >> branch. If some of them (or as you pointed out: most of them) also >> >> apply to the 2.1 branch, the 2.1 branch should re-use them dynamically >> >> and not the other way round. >> >> >> >> Thus it would be like this: 2.0 branch provides all 2.0 applicable >> >> tests, 2.1 branch re-uses the tests which also apply for 2.1 and adds >> >> some 2.1 specific ones. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jakob >> >> >> >> 2011/7/28 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Hi >> >> > >> >> > Some weeks ago a new module for integration test was added. See. >> >> > >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3217 >> >> > >> >> > The code proposed was committed on 2.0.x branch. In the following >> >> > mail >> >> > we'll discuss if we should move this to current trunk (2.1.x) or >> >> > create and maintain two copies: one in 2.0.x and the other one in >> >> > 2.1.x (trunk). >> >> > >> >> > I agree that both branches are still used a lot and are being >> >> > maintained actively. But I think maintain two branches of the same >> >> > testing code seems to be an unnecessary burden. I think we can put >> >> > this in just one place an make it run with 2.0. / 2.1 with just some >> >> > maven configuration. >> >> > >> >> > Note 2.0.x and 2.1.x are very similar. In practice, every time we >> >> > found an issue in 2.1.x, the same patch is applied to 2.0.x too. So >> >> > it >> >> > is not necessary to run the integration tests for 2.0.x branch >> >> > because >> >> > in practice when we run it against 2.1.x, we are taking into account >> >> > 2.0.x, as long as the changes be commited on 2.0.x too. >> >> > >> >> > In few words, put this on trunk does not mean it will not run against >> >> > 2.0 !!!!. A "light" way to deal with this kind of problem is take a >> >> > look at myfaces tests project. It has two modules: 1.2 and 2.0, and >> >> > 2.0 just "take what it needs" from 1.2 module and that's it. This >> >> > reduce the burden to the minimum. >> >> > >> >> > regards, >> >> > >> >> > Leonardo Uribe >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jakob Korherr >> >> >> >> blog: http://www.jakobk.com >> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr >> >> work: http://www.irian.at >> > >> > > > -- Jakob Korherr blog: http://www.jakobk.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr work: http://www.irian.at