Re: JunitTestRunner commit
On 2018-04-05, Maarten Coene wrote: > I think I finally got it merged into the 1.9.x branch... yes, looks good. > (Where are the days where everything was so easy with SVN ;-)) I've maintained svn branches long enough to recall merging is a pain regardless of which SCM you use :-) > I did a little test, and I didn't see a difference compared to 1.10.3 > in the error output when a test has a failing static initializer. Great, thanks Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
Re: JunitTestRunner commit
Thanks Stefan for your time and patience :-)I think I finally got it merged into the 1.9.x branch...(Where are the days where everything was so easy with SVN ;-)) I did a little test, and I didn't see a difference compared to 1.10.3 in the error output when a test has a failing static initializer. thanks,Maarten Van: Stefan Bodewig Aan: dev@ant.apache.org Verzonden: donderdag 5 april 8:25 2018 Onderwerp: Re: JunitTestRunner commit On 2018-04-04, Maarten Coene wrote: > Since this is more or less my first commit to the Ant codebase, could > someone please review my change to JunitTestRunner ? Typo in WHATSNEW (until rather than untill). I think the change is good, although I'm not sure whether there is a difference in how a failure in the static initializer of a real test class gets reported now. I.e. do I get the exact same error/failure output from your testStaticInitializerErrorTestCase that would be created in 1.10.3? > And if all is ok, what is the correct way to merge this into the 1.9.x > branch? Personally I prefer to do it the other way around - commit to 1.9.x and merge to master - but that's too late now. In either case, as the master branch is evolving merge conflicts will become more prevalent over time. Most likely you will get by with just a single conflict in WHATSNEW that you'll need to resolve manually. Something like git checkout 1.9.x git cherry-pick 30c9dee9bad90e56703554d21819cec6033276dc # most likely resolve conflict and commit git cherry-pick 20b6163989fdf4e98d7739fca3cdf9f18a5bdc7a should probably work. If you need any help, please ask. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
Re: JunitTestRunner commit
On 2018-04-04, Maarten Coene wrote: > Since this is more or less my first commit to the Ant codebase, could > someone please review my change to JunitTestRunner ? Typo in WHATSNEW (until rather than untill). I think the change is good, although I'm not sure whether there is a difference in how a failure in the static initializer of a real test class gets reported now. I.e. do I get the exact same error/failure output from your testStaticInitializerErrorTestCase that would be created in 1.10.3? > And if all is ok, what is the correct way to merge this into the 1.9.x > branch? Personally I prefer to do it the other way around - commit to 1.9.x and merge to master - but that's too late now. In either case, as the master branch is evolving merge conflicts will become more prevalent over time. Most likely you will get by with just a single conflict in WHATSNEW that you'll need to resolve manually. Something like git checkout 1.9.x git cherry-pick 30c9dee9bad90e56703554d21819cec6033276dc # most likely resolve conflict and commit git cherry-pick 20b6163989fdf4e98d7739fca3cdf9f18a5bdc7a should probably work. If you need any help, please ask. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
