> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SUBMIT] Digester matching rules test case
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Scott Sanders wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:16:00 -0700
> > From: Scott Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [SUBMIT] Digester matching rules test case
> >
> > Patches are always welcome. As long as the test can still run, the
> > build.xml patch would be appreciated ;-)
> >
>
> In particular, I might be a stick in the mud, but I'd like it
> to still run
> on the Ant 1.3 production release :-). As long as that
> works, I'm fine
> with updating to Ant's internal JUnit task.
>
> The reason it's not that way already is primarily because I
> had problems
> with Ant class loading when running unit tests in Tomcat, so
> when I stated
> cutting and pasting ......
I can agree with that as well. When I started with JUnit and Ant, the
JUnit tasks did not work at all for me. Hence, the 'as long as the test
can still run' part ;-)
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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
