Hi Francis, well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it. My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test. But it's a personal opinion. Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not. Is there anything else we can or must supply. Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains how to build with Maven. We could adapt this for our release. @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion? Regards Rainer Francis De Brabandere wrote: > Re: logging of unit tests > > So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to error > then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format? > > But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file > in the target folder instead of console? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Francis, > > > > thanks a lot. > > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set. > > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its logical. > > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a properties > file. > > > > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting the > debug level to FATAL instead of WARN. > > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much > benefit in having the log output there. > > What do you think? > > > > Regards > > Rainer > > > > > > Francis De Brabandere wrote: > >> Re: revive the release process > >> > >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value > is > >> provided these are no real exceptions. > >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN > >> > >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level > and > >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to > >> hide the traces > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De > >> Brabandere<[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hi Rainer, > >> > > >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening. > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested), > >> >> > >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I > >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order > to > >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes. > >> >> > >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all > >> required legal documents are there. > >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me: > >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some > >> exceptions. > >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are > >> confusing. > >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the > >> unit tests? > >> >> > >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me. > >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for > voting? > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> Rainer > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > http://www.somatik.be > >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://www.somatik.be > >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > > > > > > -- > http://www.somatik.be > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
