Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Hi George
>
> Wasn't that you who strictly opposed logging to stderr ~3-5 months ago? :)
> As I remember, you said that no one will read that stderr.
I said that (George may have too).
Every test either passes or fails. We can agree that skipped tests
count as a pass or a fail, but writing stuff into logs or onto the
console is useless -- nobody, especially the build system, will be
reading output to decide if the 'all tests passed' or 'test failures'
outcome was lying.
> I think the tests we have here are kind of needing 'exotic' configuration,
> and they should be separated and not included to the regular pre-commit
> run.
The 'exotic' configurations are those that are external to the system
under test and associated test infrastructure.
AIUI George is proposing embedding Jetty into the test framework.
Regards,
Tim
> 2006/5/19, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi Stepan,
>>
>> Yes, there is probably scope for adding some logic to this test method
>> where - in the event of no network connection we write a message to
>> stderr and move on. An alternative is to provide for connections to be
>> opened up against a server on the local machine. A couple of days ago I
>> spent some time adding the small, lightweight (and Apache licensed)
>> Jetty server to the LUNI tests. In my local sandbox the LUNI
>> make/build.xml file the run.tests target was updated to start up Jetty
>> --> run the LUNI tests --> stop Jetty. It worked fine apart from a
>> glitch I had getting the cgi-bin to work properly in Jetty. Apparently
>> this is a fairly common problem when it is used on Windows. I'm starting
>> to feel that it might be best to exclude the one or two cgi-bin related
>> tests in the LUNI tests for now in the interests of bringing Jetty on
>> board. It would certainly help get some more java.net tests up and
>> running and enable this particular test case to run without the need for
>> a network connection. What do you think ?
>>
>> I would, of course, float the Jetty proposal on the dev list first to
>> make sure we were all happy with the suggestion :-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> > Richard, George
>> >
>> > I'm not fan of tests that depend on network connection. Is it
>> > necessary for
>> > this test:
>> >
>> > + public void test_getOutputStream_afterConnection() throws Exception {
>> > + URLConnection uc = new
>> >
>> URL("http://www.apache.org";).openConnection<http://www.apache.org";).openconnection/>
>>
>> >
>> > ();
>> > + uc.setDoOutput(true);
>> > + uc.connect();
>> > + assertNotNull(uc.getOutputStream());
>> > + }
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Stepan Mishura
>> > ------------------------------------------------------
>> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
