Amit, can you review the attached patch for solution #1 as originally outlined. Do we have a short/long test breakdown for Emma (i.e. is what's there "long," and EmmaClassLoading test only short)? And do we actually want to go with short/long emma, only, or more generally have a short/long breakdown of tests for all categories (and, specifically, a "smoketest" entry to do short emma, hosted, and local-web tests)?
I'm reluctant to do the extended version without having thought a bit more about the expected usage... On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Amit Manjhi <amitman...@google.com> wrote: > I like #1 as is, but would like it better with a minor modification. I > think there should be 2 explicit named targets for emma stuff: one > consisting of the short tests and the other consisting of long tests. The > short tests should always run while the long tests should at least run > during the continuous build. For now, both test targets can be included in > default with the understanding that we can cut the long test from the > default, if 'ant test' starts taking too long. > > This would mean moving the second gwt.unit from test.hosted as a separate > target that is always invoked and fixing the bad test.out value of > default.hosted.emma.tests and also specifically excluding > EmmaClassLoadingTest.class from the long tests. > > Amit > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:58 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
emma-refix.trunk@r5279.patch
Description: Binary data
