Re: Tests of 1.0
Oh, got it sorted out. Had to install the real python and bzr, not the cygwin versions of such. See updated readme. - Brett Torbjørn Smørgrav wrote: > It runs fine for me on linux, cygwin and WinXP. > > Can you give me the junit log? > > Regards > Torbjørn > > -Original Message- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 6. mars 2006 11:39 > To: scm-dev@maven.apache.org > Subject: Re: Tests of 1.0 > > > Torbjørn Smørgrav wrote: >>> Currently, the Bazaar provider tests fail for me under Windows (I have >>> Bazaar installed in Cygwin). >> What version of bazaar do you use? >> (Version 0.7 is the current stable, pre 0.7 is failing on *nix like > systems) > > $ bzr --version > bzr (bazaar-ng) 0.7 > Copyright 2005,06 Canonical Development Ltd. > http://bazaar-ng.org/ > >>> I'd actually like to have the tests not require svn, cvs, bzr installed >>> to pass, and move those tests to integration tests in some way. WDYT? >> I agree. But it's a dangerous decision. It will end up in broken baselines >> (providers) more often. >> We should encourage developers eg. myself to test with every provider. >> What about a configuration option? > > That's exactly what I meant - make it an integration test (perhaps in a > profile) so that the builds only run unit tests (which should still do > most of the testing, and just compare command lines rather than execute > them). The integration tests can be run in an integration environment > where the VCSs are installed (obviously, some will be limited to > particular ones). > > This isn't required before 1.0, but the tests need to pass before 1.0. > > - Brett >
RE: Tests of 1.0
It runs fine for me on linux, cygwin and WinXP. Can you give me the junit log? Regards Torbjørn -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 6. mars 2006 11:39 To: scm-dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: Tests of 1.0 Torbjørn Smørgrav wrote: >> Currently, the Bazaar provider tests fail for me under Windows (I have >> Bazaar installed in Cygwin). > > What version of bazaar do you use? > (Version 0.7 is the current stable, pre 0.7 is failing on *nix like systems) $ bzr --version bzr (bazaar-ng) 0.7 Copyright 2005,06 Canonical Development Ltd. http://bazaar-ng.org/ > >> I'd actually like to have the tests not require svn, cvs, bzr installed >> to pass, and move those tests to integration tests in some way. WDYT? > > I agree. But it's a dangerous decision. It will end up in broken baselines > (providers) more often. > We should encourage developers eg. myself to test with every provider. > What about a configuration option? That's exactly what I meant - make it an integration test (perhaps in a profile) so that the builds only run unit tests (which should still do most of the testing, and just compare command lines rather than execute them). The integration tests can be run in an integration environment where the VCSs are installed (obviously, some will be limited to particular ones). This isn't required before 1.0, but the tests need to pass before 1.0. - Brett
Re: Tests of 1.0
I updated the matrix : http://docs.codehaus.org/display/SCM/SCM+Matrix Emmanuel Torbjørn Smørgrav a écrit : - since Bazaar, VSS, etc are "partially implemented", according to the site, should they be omitted from this release? Or do they do enough to be useful? Can we list what is implemented and what is not? We should at least define when a provider is implemented and not only partially implemented. Now supporting a system before version 1.0 (Bazaar is currently 0.7) is almost by definition partially. However I think its usefull and complete enough to be released. Torbjørn
RE: Tests of 1.0
> - since Bazaar, VSS, etc are "partially implemented", according to the > site, should they be omitted from this release? Or do they do enough to > be useful? Can we list what is implemented and what is not? We should at least define when a provider is implemented and not only partially implemented. Now supporting a system before version 1.0 (Bazaar is currently 0.7) is almost by definition partially. However I think its usefull and complete enough to be released. Torbjørn
Re: Tests of 1.0
Torbjørn Smørgrav wrote: >> Currently, the Bazaar provider tests fail for me under Windows (I have >> Bazaar installed in Cygwin). > > What version of bazaar do you use? > (Version 0.7 is the current stable, pre 0.7 is failing on *nix like systems) $ bzr --version bzr (bazaar-ng) 0.7 Copyright 2005,06 Canonical Development Ltd. http://bazaar-ng.org/ > >> I'd actually like to have the tests not require svn, cvs, bzr installed >> to pass, and move those tests to integration tests in some way. WDYT? > > I agree. But it's a dangerous decision. It will end up in broken baselines > (providers) more often. > We should encourage developers eg. myself to test with every provider. > What about a configuration option? That's exactly what I meant - make it an integration test (perhaps in a profile) so that the builds only run unit tests (which should still do most of the testing, and just compare command lines rather than execute them). The integration tests can be run in an integration environment where the VCSs are installed (obviously, some will be limited to particular ones). This isn't required before 1.0, but the tests need to pass before 1.0. - Brett
RE: Tests of 1.0
> Currently, the Bazaar provider tests fail for me under Windows (I have > Bazaar installed in Cygwin). What version of bazaar do you use? (Version 0.7 is the current stable, pre 0.7 is failing on *nix like systems) > I'd actually like to have the tests not require svn, cvs, bzr installed > to pass, and move those tests to integration tests in some way. WDYT? I agree. But it's a dangerous decision. It will end up in broken baselines (providers) more often. We should encourage developers eg. myself to test with every provider. What about a configuration option? How is it done with the other VCSs? Torbjørn
RE: Tests of 1.0
This was a big one for me when adding the Perforce provider. The "contract" for each method was undocumented and I had to look in other providers to see what they were doing and mock that behavior, assuming that behavior is correct... -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:49 PM To: scm-dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: Tests of 1.0 - there's some javadoc missing. Can this be added to the public facing classes? (eg, ScmFile, ScmResult, and the manager, provider and repository interfaces)
