Re: [Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: ... >>> Question: will we be able to do the setup in the base class alone? Or is >>> this something that individual tests will need to know about? >> No, unfortunately it's not possible. With junit4 I did not manage to >> get it fully working (one time tear down I cannot

[Geoserver-devel] Hudson build is back to normal: geoserver-trunk #76

See http://gridlock.openplans.org:8080/hudson/job/geoserver-trunk/76/changes - This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use p

[Geoserver-devel] Build failed in Hudson: geoserver-trunk #75

See http://gridlock.openplans.org:8080/hudson/job/geoserver-trunk/75/changes Changes: [jdeolive] change in geotools emf model artifact ids -- [...truncated 354 lines...] [INFO] Installing http://gridlock.openplans.org:8080/hudson/job/geoserver-trunk/ws/ge

Re: [Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

On Thursday 10 April 2008 11:54:30 pm Andrea Aime wrote: > Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: > > Well you know me... i am a sucker for pretty looking code. But testng > > not playing nice with surefire seems like a bit of a blocker. So that > > leaves us with Junit3 or Junit4. > > Yeah... well, the thi

Re: [Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

Andrea Aime ha scritto: > No, unfortunately it's not possible. With junit4 I did not manage to > get it fully working (one time tear down I cannot define, More precisely, I cannot define a one time tear down method that calls non static methods (template methods in the subclasses). Yet, as far as

Re: [Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: > Well you know me... i am a sucker for pretty looking code. But testng > not playing nice with surefire seems like a bit of a blocker. So that > leaves us with Junit3 or Junit4. Yeah... well, the thing is, if you choose the right testng it works with surefire, but

Re: [Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

Well you know me... i am a sucker for pretty looking code. But testng not playing nice with surefire seems like a bit of a blocker. So that leaves us with Junit3 or Junit4. Question: will we be able to do the setup in the base class alone? Or is this something that individual tests will need to

Re: [Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: > Hi Andrea, > > the zip file reffered seems to no longer exist. Can you send it again another > way? Ah, damn, it's just that I could not attach it to the mail... Anyways, here we go: http://geo.openplans.org/~aaime/onetimesetup.zip Cheers Andrea --

Re: [Geoserver-devel] GEOSDEV space

Okay folks. So I'd like to keep this issue alive, but I don't want to bother people, sooo... On Friday, April 25th, I will bring GEOSDEV offline. In the intervening 15 days anyone can: 1) move important pages from GEOSDEV to GEOS 2) give me a list of pages to be moved, and I will move the

Re: [Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

Hi Andrea, the zip file reffered seems to no longer exist. Can you send it again another way? cheers, Gabriel On Thursday 10 April 2008 05:58:55 pm aaime wrote: > Hi, > I've made a comparison between the approaches one can take to > have a one time setup/teardown in order to avoid going thru >

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Numbers are in ...

Chris replied yesterday, see http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/soc/2008-April/000262.html I think with 4 we cover it, -Arne Jody Garnett wrote: > The numbers seem to be in; we have had one project fall through the > cracks (I saw it happen on a couple IRC channels). The H2 spatial index > proj

[Geoserver-devel] Numbers are in ...

The numbers seem to be in; we have had one project fall through the cracks (I saw it happen on a couple IRC channels). The H2 spatial index project is probably best handled by the geotools project; but it missed being noticed when simboss made the final count. If geoserver has not sent in numbe

[Geoserver-devel] JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)JUnit3, JUnit4 and TestNG comparison (for one time setup)

Hi, I've made a comparison between the approaches one can take to have a one time setup/teardown in order to avoid going thru the initialization of geoserver over and over and over during tests (at least for read only ones). The extra requirement is that the one time setup has to allow calling no

[Geoserver-devel] sigq (logger) stays in #geoserver

Thanks to gsherman (QGIS) we have had a logging bot since february 2007. All the logs can be found here: http://logs.qgis.org/geoserver/ The increase in noise levels was probably caused by a recently added plugin. It has been disabled again, so you can disregard my previous email. Thanks again

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: > On Thursday 10 April 2008 11:45:26 am Andrea Aime wrote: >> Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: >>> Heck, doesn't the OneTimeTestDecorator allows for just what we want? (non >>> static oneTimeSetUp and oneTimeTearDown): >>>

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

On Thursday 10 April 2008 11:45:26 am Andrea Aime wrote: > Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: > > Heck, doesn't the OneTimeTestDecorator allows for just what we want? (non > > static oneTimeSetUp and oneTimeTearDown): > > > > I looked at

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: > Heck, doesn't the OneTimeTestDecorator allows for just what we want? (non > static oneTimeSetUp and oneTimeTearDown): > I looked at it, but I did not get how to use it. First, I can't seem to find t

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

Heck, doesn't the OneTimeTestDecorator allows for just what we want? (non static oneTimeSetUp and oneTimeTearDown): Gabriel On Thursday 10 April 2008 11:37:44 am Gabriel Roldán wrote: > On Thursday 10 April 2008 11:20:20 am And

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: > agreed, it is as hacky as it is. Yet doing it explicitly as a template class > (the final setUp and the setUp_Internal for subclass specific needs) > documents the "framework" far better than stating subclasses should call > super.setUp etc. > Honestly I'm a bit hes

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

On Thursday 10 April 2008 11:20:20 am Andrea Aime wrote: > Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: > > Hi Andrea, > > > > good stuff. > > > > I can only think of a custom "framework" to handle that, which would be > > something like: > > > > public abstract class GeoServerAbstractTestClass extends TestCase{ > >

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: Hi Andrea, good stuff. I can only think of a custom "framework" to handle that, which would be something like: public abstract class GeoServerAbstractTestClass extends TestCase{ *private* static boolean oneTimeSetupDone = false; public *final* void setUp() thro

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Junit 4 and @BeforeClass... no good?

Hi Andrea, good stuff. I can only think of a custom "framework" to handle that, which would be something like: public abstract class GeoServerAbstractTestClass extends TestCase{ *private* static boolean oneTimeSetupDone = false; public *final* void setUp() throws Exception{ if(!oneT

Re: [Geoserver-devel] GML3 bindings and community schemas

Gabriel Roldán wrote: > On Wednesday 09 April 2008 03:33:15 am Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > > (1) Are binding overrides principally necessary because of the wrapping > > required to support complex features in GS 1.6.x / GT 2.4.x? > exactly > > > > (2) If so, does this mean that the new feature

Re: [Geoserver-devel] GML3 bindings and community schemas

Hi Ben, sorry for the late response. On Wednesday 09 April 2008 03:33:15 am Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > I have been working on GS 1.6.x / GT 2.4.x, and have tangled with a few > GML3 binding overrides required to get community-schemas to work as > expected for GeoSciML Testbed 3. > > At some stag