I guess we disagree, since I believe application quality and code quality are related. And, further, I believe findbugs at least can identify real, functional bugs (as opposed to checkstyle).
G. On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:15:34AM -0700, Glenn Adams wrote: > > OK, understand on the junit headless issue. For checkstyle/findbugs it > would > > be useful to fail the nightly build if they do not pass. I will > investigate > > the necessary changes to enable this option, which I hope can be adopted. > > I would not agree. Nightly builds are a courtesy to the user. It would > be good if we could guarantee that the builds pass the junit tests. > But it is not relevant to the user whether they pass checkstyle and > findbugs rules. These tests address the issue of code quality, not of > application quality. > > Simon > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu > >wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:25:20AM -0700, Glenn Adams wrote: > > > > I notice also that the nightly build target does not run all the > junit > > > > tests. It would be better if it run all of them plus checkstyle and > > > > findbugs. > > > > > > Many junit tests require a display. Nightly builds are run in a > > > headless configuration, hence I had to disable many junit tests. At > > > nightly builds there is no one to check checkstyle and findbugs errors > > > and warnings; therefore there is no point in running them. > > > > > > Simon > > > >
