> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Liang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Oliver Deakin wrote:
> > Paulex Yang wrote:
> >> Just a wild thought, because TestNG support both jre142 and jdk5, so
> >> there must be some way to make it run with annotation but without
> >> concurrent, just have
Oliver Deakin wrote:
Paulex Yang wrote:
Just a wild thought, because TestNG support both jre142 and jdk5, so
there must be some way to make it run with annotation but without
concurrent, just have a look at the layout of TestNG[1] source code
from its v4.1 release, seems if we replace the
s
Paulex Yang wrote:
Just a wild thought, because TestNG support both jre142 and jdk5, so
there must be some way to make it run with annotation but without
concurrent, just have a look at the layout of TestNG[1] source code
from its v4.1 release, seems if we replace the
src/jdk15/org/testng/inte
Just a wild thought, because TestNG support both jre142 and jdk5, so
there must be some way to make it run with annotation but without
concurrent, just have a look at the layout of TestNG[1] source code from
its v4.1 release, seems if we replace the
src/jdk15/org/testng/internal/thread/*.java w
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Oliver,
But is j.u.c actually required to be in the runtime under test? I was
thinking
that j.u.c was only required for the VM actually running the harness,
and all
that gets run on the VM under test is the actual test method. If this
was true,
then we could run TestNG
Hi Oliver,
But is j.u.c actually required to be in the runtime under test? I was
thinking
that j.u.c was only required for the VM actually running the harness,
and all
that gets run on the VM under test is the actual test method. If this
was true,
then we could run TestNG with the RI (which has
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Oliver,
So perhaps the build system should be changed temporarily so that
we dont self host the test harness? i.e. until we get
java.util.concurrent,
run Ant and the subsequent TestNG process with RI or other non-Harmony
VM, and launch the tests with Harmony VM using
Hi Oliver,
So perhaps the build system should be changed temporarily so that
we dont self host the test harness? i.e. until we get java.util.concurrent,
run Ant and the subsequent TestNG process with RI or other non-Harmony
VM, and launch the tests with Harmony VM using the jvm option.
The bad
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
> We now have this, so let the TestNG debate continue :)
Unfortunately, we still need java.util.concurrent :-(
Yeah, TestNG 5.0 still throws java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError :
java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue on Harmony+j9v4.
So perhaps the build system should be
Richard Liang wrote:
Oliver Deakin wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Richard,
Not sure if we really want to involve another migration: TestNG
javadoc
-> TestNG annotation. Any comments?
Well, IMHO this depends on time constraints - when do we plan to have
the suppo
> We now have this, so let the TestNG debate continue :)
Unfortunately, we still need java.util.concurrent :-(
Yeah, TestNG 5.0 still throws java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError :
java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue on Harmony+j9v4.
I've also got an error while trying to compile TestNG 5.0 tests
Oliver Deakin wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Richard,
Not sure if we really want to involve another migration: TestNG
javadoc
-> TestNG annotation. Any comments?
Well, IMHO this depends on time constraints - when do we plan to have
the support for anotations? If
Richard Liang wrote:
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Richard,
Not sure if we really want to involve another migration: TestNG javadoc
-> TestNG annotation. Any comments?
Well, IMHO this depends on time constraints - when do we plan to have
the support for anotations? If the answer is about a cou
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi Richard,
Not sure if we really want to involve another migration: TestNG javadoc
-> TestNG annotation. Any comments?
Well, IMHO this depends on time constraints - when do we plan to have
the support for anotations? If the answer is about a couple of weeks -
no prob
Hi Richard,
Not sure if we really want to involve another migration: TestNG javadoc
-> TestNG annotation. Any comments?
Well, IMHO this depends on time constraints - when do we plan to have
the support for anotations? If the answer is about a couple of weeks -
no problem, we can wait. But if t
Alexei Zakharov wrote:
Hi,
I have created this new thread as a single place for discussions
started in "Re: [testing] Peace" and "[classlib] Testing conventions –
a proposal" threads.
What did we have in the previous threads?
* Test classification proposed by Vladimir
* Test classification an
Hi Alex,
some ways we can achieve this. Do we want to finish deciding that
before the migration, or are we confident that we will get to a point
where a decision is made and we can start transitioning beforehand?
Well, IMHO adding some extra javadoc tag will not break anything.
There are situa
The question I'd like to raise now is – aren't we ready for TestNG
right now? For example, we could replace our harness from jUnit to
TestNG and lazily start converting of some failing and platform
dependent tests to javadoc version of TestNG.
Thought? Suggestions? Opposite opinions?
I think th
Hi,
I have created this new thread as a single place for discussions
started in "Re: [testing] Peace" and "[classlib] Testing conventions –
a proposal" threads.
What did we have in the previous threads?
* Test classification proposed by Vladimir
* Test classification and group names proposed by
19 matches
Mail list logo
