Anton Avtamonov wrote:
I also agree.
The only 'requirement' I would add is that it should be possible to do
such mark-up on per-check basis rather than per-test_method or even
per-test_class basic. Because each testMehtod() may have several
checks only few of them will be harmony-dependent.
Wow....you are much more ambitious than me! ;-)
Quick searching Ant's reference, and I only found the exclude support on
per-class basis. Any potential to use Ant without programming to support
filter like this?
If programming based on annotation, how about writing some APT processor
to generate Harmony specific test suites/RI compatibility test
suites/excluded tests list?
--
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division
On 4/17/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1. Annotation is a good way to deliver such information.
On 4/17/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I consider the isHarmony() should be metadata, I have concerns to hard
code in test cases. How about mark these test cases as "non-compatible"
by annotation, by naming convention or more directly by some list, and
use test script to handle them?
--
Anton Avtamonov,
Intel Middleware Products Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM
