I created a few integration-tests for the jar-plugin using the Maven
Embedder as described in
http://maven.apache.org/developers/committer-testing-plugins.html
under both maven-it-plugin and maven-plugin-test-plugin (I didn't use
any testing plugins, just the install-plugin). Add the Embedder to
your list of testing utilities.
I think a lot of things could be improved in the testing strategies.
The bugs that I fixed in the jar-plugin took me less than an hour to
complete, but creating the testcases to me about three days before I
finally found the above mentioned page.
Maybe I've missunderstood something completely, but as far as I
understand some tests are auctually testing the result from the
previous build?
/Johan
2007/12/12, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You forgot the maven-plugin-testing-harness ;-)
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Fabulich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:07 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Invoker vs. Verifier?
>
> John Casey wrote:
>
> > What you're seeing as overlap is a mixture of concerns in the invoker
> > plugin. The verifications beanshell really needs to be migrated out to
>
> > some sort of proper integration-testing plugin (or, even better, a
> > plugin that unites invoker and verifier under a common
> > configuration...then extend the verifier with the invoker's beanshell
> > functionality). Regardless, the invoker plugin can be used for any
> sort
> > of scenario where you need to fork a new maven process. I've
> personally
> > used it to proxy secondary builds in some sticky client use cases. You
>
> > don't have to use the beanshell script to verify the build, it's just
> an
> > [admittedly confusing] option.
>
> As I've remarked before, I find it weird that various Maven developers
> have gone and written _plugins_ to do Maven integration testing.
>
> Integration tests are just tests; we know how to write/run tests using
> real test frameworks like JUnit and TestNG. Those frameworks are pretty
>
> cool; you can do stuff like rerun failures-only, graph results over
> time,
> write data-driven tests, etc. You can even use them to write tests in
> scripting languages like Groovy, BeanShell, etc. All that AND you get
> excellent IDE integration.
>
> More generally, while I certainly see the value of a
> maven-invoker-plugin,
> I don't expect that you'd want that to be the "normal" way people would
> write Maven integration tests.
>
> Right now there are four things: maven-verifier, maven-verifier-plugin
> (no
> relation!), maven-invoker, and maven-invoker-plugin.
>
> I think I'd like to advocate ripping out the bulk of maven-verifier and
> make it depend entirely on maven-invoker. Since maven-verifier is so
> confusingly named, I think I'd want to take the good bits out and put
> them
> in maven-integration-test-helper (which is what maven-verifier really
> is,
> anyway).
>
> More controversially (?) I'd like to deprecate the idea of writing
> *tests*
> using the maven-invoker-plugin, instead preferring to write them in Java
>
> (or BeanShell, I'm easy!) running them using a "real" test framework.
> maven-invoker-plugin should still be used for spawning sub-builds in
> those
> delightful cases where that's necessary.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Dan
>
> -----
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Johan Kindgren
Acrend AB
Phone: +46 (0) 733-58 36 60
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.acrend.se
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
