Olivier Lamy wrote:
My question is : why do prefer shitty (the name ? :- ) .
Good question ;-), but I believe this is irrelevant for the things Jason
had in mind. As I understand, the intention was to try out how the
plugins work with Maven 2.1. But that merely requires to build them with
Hi Arnaud,
2008/8/7 Arnaud HERITIER [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As I said in another thread, we just ended 3.
We named the profile integration-tests but to have the same name as in the
core we'll rename it run-its
It seems that there is 2 point of view about ITs activation :
-1) ITs are part of the
Vincent Siveton wrote:
So, what to do if a user propose a test case? Add it as an IT or transform it
to the
plugin harness?
IMHO, ITs give us the most value in terms of coverage so these are my
favorite. Admittedly, that might be influenced by the fact that plugin
ITs are usually easier to
ITs are needed for example in plugins when we wrap another tool, but
otherwise, and particularly in the core we should have a good unit tests
suite.
In plugins world, we have a lot of UTs with our test harness and ITs.
I think ITs is sometimes misunderstanding by dev or users wich
As I said in another thread, we just ended 3.
We named the profile integration-tests but to have the same name as in the
core we'll rename it run-its
It seems that there is 2 point of view about ITs activation :
-1) ITs are part of the build and always launched
-2) ITs are launched on demand
:15 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Sane plugin testing
My pick for the tool is STY. I think Brian has used it, and Jason
Dillon definitely has his opinion.
The unit testing is different and the plugin-testing-harness is for
unit testing and I'm not concerned about
but haven't
tried it)
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:15 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Sane plugin testing
My pick for the tool is STY. I think Brian has used it, and Jason
Dillon definitely has
Hi,
I think we've gotten to the point where we need to decide how we are
going to test plugins. We need to pick one of the frameworks, settle
on a pattern, and use that in the plugins otherwise there will be no
sane way to validate a set of plugins works against a given version of
Maven.
+1 to all below.
All the information I could find in January is here:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Review+of+Plugin+Testing+Strategies
Please use that as a starting point. There has probably been stuff
added to STY since. It generally seemed the best, but I would like to
see
My pick for the tool is STY. I think Brian has used it, and Jason
Dillon definitely has his opinion.
The unit testing is different and the plugin-testing-harness is for
unit testing and I'm not concerned about that in this context. If you
look at the way Jason Dillon tests his plugins I
]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:15 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Sane plugin testing
My pick for the tool is STY. I think Brian has used it, and Jason
Dillon definitely has his opinion.
The unit testing is different and the plugin-testing-harness is for
unit testing and I'm
11 matches
Mail list logo
