I do. I don't like the idea that we need to use the suites like this.
I'm going to write a little ant task on the plane today (if I make it)
to deal with this, so please delay so we can compare the two solutions.
geir
Tim Ellison wrote:
Does anyone object to this going in?
It is the XML exclusion list that was described a while ago. My
recollection is that people thought that it was a good idea -- but just
rechecking before I go ahead.
This will only be applied to LUNI at the moment, but the technique is
generally applicable.
Regards,
Tim
George Harley (JIRA) wrote:
Enable more LUNI tests to run using XML exclusion list
------------------------------------------------------
Key: HARMONY-263
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-263
Project: Harmony
Type: Improvement
Components: Classlib
Environment: All
Reporter: George Harley
This issue suggests running the LUNI test suite with a JUnit decorator that can
exclude known test failures previously documented in an XML file.
The exclusion list is already in the tree along with its XML schema (see jcltest-excludes.xml and excludes.xsd under support/src/test/resources) although it may be more helpful to move these to under the top level make directory. Similarly, the JUnit decorator class tests.util.SomeTests is already in the tree under support/src/test/java.
The forthcoming patches propose updating the "run.tests" in modules/luni/make/common/build.xml to
run a decorated version of the LUNI AllTests suite. Perhaps rather than being an outright replacement of the
existing "run.tests" target this could be a peer target called something like
"run.tests.with.exclusions" ?
Hopefully the exclusions list and the JUnit decorator class approach suggested in this issue will be adopted in other modules besides LUNI.
Note that because this issue enables more LUNI tests to run, the suite will take longer to complete and will run the java.net.* tests that rely on network servers (HTTP, FTP, SOCKS) being available as documented in the README included in HARMONY-57. If the servers are not available then failures will result which, I suppose, forces us to think about how we might bundle test servers into the tree and have them auto-started as the tests are run.
Patches to follow...
Best regards,
George
