Vincent Massol wrote:
> I've just updated
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/best+practices+-+testing+strategies
>
> Let me know if you have questions about what's there.
Thanks, I'll take a look when I have a clearer head.
- Brett
-
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: jeudi 26 janvier 2006 22:14
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Integration testing proposal for Maven 2.0.x
>
> Vincent,
>
> There's a huge difference. Anyth
I prefer 'itest' to 'it', and prefer
'integration' even more.
Kind regards,
Dave Sag
Tomasz Pik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 26-01-2006
23:21:50:
> On 26/01/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have the following concerns:
> > - adding an "it" scope. I haven't seen expla
On 26/01/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the following concerns:
> - adding an "it" scope. I haven't seen explained how this will behave,
> nor the impact on existing plugins.
Maybe 'itest' (instead of 'it') will be easier to understand for those, who
see it for the first tim
d confirm it is stable there.
Does this sound ok?
- Brett
Vincent Massol wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: mercredi 25 janvier 2006 00:38
>> To: Maven Developers List
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Integr
janvier 2006 11:12
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Integration testing proposal for Maven 2.0.x
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'Maven Developers Li
> -Original Message-
> From: Grzegorz Slowikowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: mardi 24 janvier 2006 11:12
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Integration testing proposal for Maven 2.0.x
>
>
> - Original Message -
> Fro
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: mercredi 25 janvier 2006 00:38
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Integration testing proposal for Maven 2.0.x
>
> +1 for src/it
>
> I've got to say I'm
+1 to src/it
-1 to 2.0.3, I'd rather have a stable 2.0.x without new features and
have a early 2.1 with the new stuff postponing new features not
implemented to 2.2
On 1/23/06, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In order to progress on the topic of integration testing, I'm proposi
+1 for src/it
I've got to say I'm greatly hesitant to add new things to 2.0.3, but it
wouldn't be the first time. Be careful :)
How sure are we that this will be the final solution - are new test
types needed?
Just trying to get a grip on where we are at with the topic as a whole.
- Brett
Vinc
+1
Agree with Jason for src/it
Thanks for this improvement.
Vincent
2006/1/23, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> In order to progress on the topic of integration testing, I'm proposing the
> following strategy that we can implement immediately:
>
> * We add one new element to the PO
- Original Message -
From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Maven Developers List'"
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:02 PM
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Integration testing proposal for Maven 2.0.x
Hi,
...
* We create a new surefire:test-integ
+1
Emmanuel
Vincent Massol a écrit :
Hi,
In order to progress on the topic of integration testing, I'm proposing the
following strategy that we can implement immediately:
* We add one new element to the POM
(similar to the current element but for integration
tests)
* We make it default to
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
In order to progress on the topic of integration testing, I'm proposing the
following strategy that we can implement immediately:
* We add one new element to the POM
(similar to the current element but for integration
tests)
+1
I think we need the definition in th
Hi,
In order to progress on the topic of integration testing, I'm proposing the
following strategy that we can implement immediately:
* We add one new element to the POM
(similar to the current element but for integration
tests)
* We make it default to src/test-integration.
* We create a new
15 matches
Mail list logo
