LGTM from me---I remember we turned it off when htmlunit was all hangy, and at the time I was lobbying that iwe should at least have a warning saying "hey, nothing to do" unless some of the remote properties was set. The (probably correct) counter that nobody would notice the warning if they didn't notice the too-fast completion carried the day.
@Scott, your side-by-side diff is messed 'cause rietveld didn't get a good apply of the patch when it tried to sync with code.google.com. That might mean that your diff is bad, it might mean that however you uploaded it (which was probably my script?) got you a bad baseline revision, or---I think most likely---it might do with the fact that code.google.com was snarled earlier today. On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Scott Blum <sco...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Amit Manjhi <amitman...@google.com> wrote: > >> LGTM. HtmlUnit should be used; it should be uncommented everywhere. I >> uncommented a few things in r7787 (link below), but it seems like I missed a >> few instances. >> >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=7787&path=/trunk/user/build.xml >> >> One nit : the assertion that "ant -f user/build.xml test" doesn't do >> anything seems incorrect. It still runs HtmlUnit tests. No? This patch fixes >> ant test.dev, ant test.web, and other similar targets. >> > > My bad, you're right. Didn't realize ant test didn't rely on the other > targets. > > On a quasi-related note... it seems like we should get rid of the > distro.built checks. It's not actually true that the distro has to be built > in advance, and many test targets don't insist on it. > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
