[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2531?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Howard M. Lewis Ship closed TAPESTRY-2531.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Upgrade EasyM
Upgrade EasyMock dependency to latest version, 2.4
--
Key: TAPESTRY-2531
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-2531
Project: Tapestry
Issue Type: Improvement
Components
To support Jesse here, I'm also a TestNG believer. It contains a huge number
of features, well beyong Junit, and it's well though out and has reasonable
IDE plugins. It also supports JDK 1.4 if you like, via an xdoclet kind of
approach.
On 6/23/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I th
I think to me the question is more what is the benefit of Junit over TestNG?
I've been creating annotation/configuration driven tests for a very long
time now with TestNG. Junit4 is going to have to do a lot better than
copying one (and not even a full copy!) feature to win me over.
They also are
On 6/17/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As long as we're on the subject, I should warn everyone that I also
plan/would like to change our unit tests to use TestNG as well. It's the
Just asking - regarding Tap, what's the benefit of TestNG over Junit 4.x?
Kalle
---
On 6/18/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did you have to do anything to upgrade? Is there an incompatible API
change?
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:57 AM
To: Tapestry development
Subject: Re: easymock
Ah
I'm all in favor of moving towards TestNG and EasyMock 2.0. That's what I
use for all my non-Tapestry-4 work.
On 6/18/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If HiveMindTestCase doesn't need to change to compile, then everything
should be okay. We're marking th
If HiveMindTestCase doesn't need to change to compile, then everything
should be okay. We're marking the easymock jar as optional in our pom. So,
if you provide another one that's newer and HiveMindTestCase still works, it
should be good to go.
-Original Message-
Fro
Did you have to do anything to upgrade? Is there an incompatible API
change?
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:57 AM
To: Tapestry development
Subject: Re: easymock
Ah sorry about that Kent. I felt badly enough about my goof
Jesse Kuhnert gmail.com> writes:
> I should probably have been more vocal about what I was doing, didn't know
> other cooks were coming into the kitchen. Not sure how everyone else feels,
> but can't imagine hivemind has ~more~ unit tests than tapestry - so maybe
> they would like to upgrade as w
te with
words so hopefully any bluntness on my part won't be perceived too badly..
On 6/17/06, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kent Tong cpttm.org.mo> writes:
>
> > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to
easymock...We're
> > upgraded now!
>
Kent Tong cpttm.org.mo> writes:
>
> > Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to easymock...We're
> > upgraded now!
>
> Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I think
> we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?
> Oops! Now I know what Kent was talking about in regard to easymock...We're
> upgraded now!
Do we really want to upgrade? As Hivemind 1.1 is using easymock 1.1, I think
we should stick to 1.1. What do you think?
--
Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskill
13 matches
Mail list logo
