On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, I started doing this on a branch and added some notes about my progress. > Anyone have any thoughts on that approach? > > I checked in with Milos about the toolchains. He said the copying to > M2_HOME/lib is not needed if you have the extension - and it seems that the > first part of the patch on NMAVEN-147 might be aimed to address that issue. > Milos also agreed that the change to the configuration proposed there seemed > to make sense so I'll review that patch again.
it shouldn't be needed ;) but it is for me i also like the toolchain config > > However, the ITs do run without them (as long as everything is in the path, > 0.14 style), so I've gone towards getting that combo running first, then add > the toolchains as an extra layer next for now. I haven't tried without the toolchain, just copying to M2_HOME/lib > > Cheers, > Brett > > On 02/09/2008, at 3:52 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> >> On 18/08/2008, at 8:15 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: >> >>> I've been working in the integration tests lately and fixed some of the >>> problems >>> >>> - found a workaround for trunk to work, copying dotnet toolchain to >>> M2_HOME/lib NMAVEN-186 >>> with this workaround most of the integration tests pass >>> >>> - fixed test compilation in trunk NMAVEN-192 >>> >>> - make integration tests in trunk run against 0.14 NMAVEN-193 and >>> NMAVEN-186 >>> just needs search and replace and a small patch in 0.14 >>> >>> - hit problem with NUnit tests execution, no tests are executed >>> NMAVEN-8 (reopened) >>> >>> If NUnit problem NMAVEN-8 is fixed (waiting for comment from Shane) >>> then I can continue testing. Right now all integration tests but the >>> ones involving NUnit seem to work against trunk and 0.14. >> >> Unless anyone else is planning to, I can start to take a look at these >> over the next few days. >> >>> >>> >>> Also is the convention to require NUnit explicitly listed in the pom >>> to run the tests? seems so as the tests need to be annotated with >>> NUnit annotations >> >> That would make sense to me - same as junit, etc in Java? >> >> - Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ >> > > -- > Brett Porter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ > >
