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]