yeah, this is why we skip the tests sometimes :) your idea of changing the logging in the test does seem the best way to go.
thanx for sticking with this. ben On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Camille Fournier <[email protected]> wrote: > The base test case this is extending, ZkTestCase, was never ported, so > I think it would be a bit more than just copying the test over. I > think backporting ZkTestCase isn't that big a deal, but then we also > have the whole slf4j upgrade that's going to start biting us over many > of the back ports we try to do. I could just take out the logging in > the test so I'll do that if we think that's the way to go. > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Benjamin Reed <[email protected]> wrote: >> yeah, branches are a pain to maintain. we have done both ways: checked >> in the patch without the test and also backported the test. the later >> is the preferable one in my opinion. the test case is a whole new >> class right? can we just copy the class from trunk? >> >> ben >> >> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Camille Fournier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> I'm trying to get the bug fixes for >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1046 and >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1069 ported back to >>> the 3.3 branch, but the tests written for these fixes won't port >>> because the test case was never checked in to that branch. What should >>> I do here? Check in the fixes to the branch with no test? I'm not >>> entirely crazy about that option but it seems like that has been done >>> before (the test in question was originally created for a different >>> bug fix that was ported without tests to 3.3 from trunk). >>> I'm ok to do that for these fixes but going forward do we really want >>> to be pushing fixes in anywhere without tests? I'd hate to have a >>> "fix" that doesn't work and we don't catch due to this. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> C >>> >> >
