On 23/09/2008, at 1:37 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Ok, I started doing this on a branch and added some notes about my
progress. Anyone have any thoughts on that approach?
It's now possible to run the ITs on trunk against 0.14-incubating-
SNAPSHOT, 0.15-incubating and 0.16-incubating-SNAPSHOT independently.
I'm working on the toolchains again next to be able to easily run the
ITs against a non-default configuration, then I expect to merge it
back to trunk.
- Brett
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.
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.
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/
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
