Patches are always welcome. As long as the test can still run, the
build.xml patch would be appreciated ;-)
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "robert burrell donkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:58 PM
Subject: [SUBMIT] Digester matching rules test case
> this is an additional test case aimed at matching rules.
> it takes the (two) original matching rules tests defined in the basic
> DigesterTestCase
> and adds another couple.
> the main reason for separating out from the basic DigesterTestCase is that
> this class should allow subclasses to test extensions of the basic
> matching rules.
>
> i was going to remove the duplicate tests from DigesterTestCase but i don'
> t see any real harm in keeping them around (for the moment).
>
> i couldn't help noticing that the build.xml uses a <java> (ant) task to
> perform the tests. the latest version of ant has quite a nice task that
> does junit testing that i've used before and i think works pretty well.
> the patch for the build script uses the existing method but i'd be willing
> to provide a patch converting it to use the ant junit tasks if people
> think that's a good idea.
>
> - robert
>
> <Attachment missing><Attachment missing><Attachment missing>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> this is an additional test case aimed at matching rules.
> it takes the (two) original matching rules tests defined in the basic
> DigesterTestCase
> and adds another couple.
> the main reason for separating out from the basic DigesterTestCase is that
> this class should allow subclasses to test extensions of the basic
> matching rules.
>
> i was going to remove the duplicate tests from DigesterTestCase but i don'
> t see any real harm in keeping them around (for the moment).
>
> i couldn't help noticing that the build.xml uses a <java> (ant) task to
> perform the tests. the latest version of ant has quite a nice task that
> does junit testing that i've used before and i think works pretty well.
> the patch for the build script uses the existing method but i'd be willing
> to provide a patch converting it to use the ant junit tasks if people
> think that's a good idea.
>
> - robert
>
>
