On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, David Graham wrote:
>
> --- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, David Graham wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Mess
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, David Graham wrote:
>
> --- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > I have a bit of trouble with "supposed to fail". P
RROR] TEST org.apache.commons.validator.EmailTest FAILED
Yoav Shapira
Millennium Research Informatics
>-Original Message-
>From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:24 PM
>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>Subject: Re: [Validator] Unit tests faili
--- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I have a bit of trouble with "supposed to fail". Perhaps "currently
> > > expected to fail"? ;-)
> > >
> >
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I have a bit of trouble with "supposed to fail". Perhaps "currently
> > expected to fail"? ;-)
> >
> > In any case, I'm not comfortable with rolling a release where
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have a bit of trouble with "supposed to fail". Perhaps "currently
> expected to fail"? ;-)
>
> In any case, I'm not comfortable with rolling a release where 'maven clean
> dist' fails right out of the box. Can we d
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Validator] Unit tests failing
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > > I thi
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > --- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think its the ExceptionTest which is failing and it looks like it
> > > should
> > > > from the code. Th
> -Original Message-
> --- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > > I think its the ExceptionTest which is failing and it looks like it
> > should
> > > from the code. There are three tests in ExceptionTest - only one has
> > code t
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> I think its the ExceptionTest which is failing and it looks like it should
> from the code. There are three tests in ExceptionTest - only one has code to
> "pass" the test if it gets the Exception its expecting - the other two are
> set to "fail".
>
>
I think its the ExceptionTest which is failing and it looks like it should
from the code. There are three tests in ExceptionTest - only one has code to
"pass" the test if it gets the Exception its expecting - the other two are
set to "fail".
The two test which have failures have code to "pass" the
11 matches
Mail list logo