I likes #1. On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Freeland Abbott <fabb...@google.com> wrote:
> Er. Can I take back my approval? It looks like test.hosted already and > also runs the Emma tests, and the test.hosted.emma target has a bad test.out > value. > We can, I think, do any one of: > > 1. have test.hosted.emma as an explicit named target, fix its test.out, > cut the second gwt.junit from test.hosted, and keep your patch, or > 2. have test.hosted embody emma tests, cutting your patch and the > test.hosted.emma target, or > 3. have test.hosted embody emma tests, but allow them to be run > separately, cutting your patch and fixing test.hosted.emma's test.out. > > I think I prefer #1 and dislike #3. Any dissenting opinion, while I make > the patch for that? > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Amit Manjhi <amitman...@google.com>wrote: > >> Makes sense. Thanks. Commited as r5275 >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Freeland Abbott <fabb...@google.com>wrote: >> >>> But now we're running them twice. >>> I'll give you the LGTM as testing is good, but I'm a bit worried for the >>> time penalty. But if it's a problem, we can fall back to the other approach >>> when it's clear it's a problem. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Amit Manjhi <amitman...@google.com>wrote: >>> >>>> It just requires emma.jar which is pulled in from the tools dir. The >>>> time is basically the same as running hosted mode user tests. >>>> >>>> Amit >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Freeland Abbott >>>> <fabb...@google.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, that will run emma tests for everyone everywhere who does "ant >>>>> test"... >>>>> Does it require anything in particular to work, which people might not >>>>> have installed? And is the time significant? >>>>> >>>>> We can easily enough tweak the continuous builder configuration to >>>>> explicitly run the emma tests, if either of those questions gets a bad >>>>> answer. If they're both good, then maybe it's reasonable for all users to >>>>> run all tests (with the caveat that non-local web tests also need >>>>> properties >>>>> set, or they become no-ops...) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Amit Manjhi <amitman...@google.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Freeland, >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch makes the emma tests run as part of our continuous build. >>>>>> The tests basically run all tests in user, except where sun's and >>>>>> openjdk's >>>>>> javac are broken, with emma.jar on the classpath. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Amit >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
