On 11/11/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernd suggested it specifically because he felt that Committers are not
running the tests before committing changes. I don't actually think that
has been a significant problem. Perhaps Bernd's suggestion was inspired by
the recent change I
Am Samstag, den 11.11.2006, 01:02 +0100 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
> > Except for one thing ... a build takes a few seconds, even from scratch, and
> > the unit tests take anywhere from 3 minutes on up, especially the very slow
> > IMAP-related tests.
>
> Slow tests are a unit test anti-pattern on
Noel J. Bergman schrieb:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
+1 for the dist: it is where the real check has to be forced.
In other scenario it won't help forcing something.
Agreed.
+1
The long-running tests issues is solved using a decent CI environment.
We do have nightly builds
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
mvn test -Dtest=SMTPServerTest
Ant, apparently, supports the same.
--- Noel
No. Ant needs 20 custom lines in the build.xml: they have to be mantained.
It is not the same :-)
Btw I think that even things that make one single active committer more
happy are goo
> > We do have nightly builds.
> Right, but nighly means once per day (per night?)
> 1) often it happens after many hours from the commit
> 2) often multiple commits have been done and we need
>time to identify the bad commit
As I said, I can change the frequency. That's easy. But I don't k
On 11/11/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AIUI, your proposal means multiple jars (instead of just james.jar),
multiple separate components,
Yes.
and complicates refactoring/introduction of
new internal modules. No?
No, it doesnlt have to. I understand why you wouldn't want
ant run-unit-test -Dtest=org.apache.james.smtpserver.SMTPServerTest
>>> I think that generally speaking it is not a good idea to complicate the
>>> build.xml with unused targets
>> And why is this bad, as opposed to the `mvn test -Dtest=SMTPServerTest`,
>> which you just suggested? And why
Danny Angus wrote:
> 1/ Ant is the *only* sanctioned way to build James
> 2/ we should run the unit tests every time we build with ant
I've added the latter to the dist build. I think that the overhead is
excessive during development.
> > you're talking about adding 8 minutes to every build, in
On 11/11/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should run the unit tests every time we build using ant, that is
> the official way to build James.
Sorry my bad, I expressed myself badly.
1/ Ant is the *only* sanctioned way to build James
2/ we should run the unit tests every time
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
+1 for the dist: it is where the real check has to be forced.
In other scenario it won't help forcing something.
Agreed.
The long-running tests issues is solved using a decent CI environment.
We do have nightly builds. And the nightly build p
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > +1 for the dist: it is where the real check has to be forced.
> > In other scenario it won't help forcing something.
I am committing a change to build.xml that forces two additional targets to
run when doing a dist build. It forces a clean, fir
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I think that using maven we could simply configure our pom to run unit
tests just before the scm:checkin target.
mvn -Dmessage="" scm:checkin
How hard is to to run svn commit -m ""?
The point is that it is not harder or easier, but with maven
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I think that using maven we could simply configure our pom to run unit
> tests just before the scm:checkin target.
> mvn -Dmessage="" scm:checkin
How hard is to to run svn commit -m ""?
> I don't know if a plugin for ant exists to manage commit/update tasks in
svn.
I d
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> +1 for the dist: it is where the real check has to be forced.
> In other scenario it won't help forcing something.
Agreed.
> The long-running tests issues is solved using a decent CI environment.
We do have nightly builds. And the nightly build pointed out the failed
t
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > By the way, is there a way to run a single, specific, unit test?>
> I bet you thought to something [using ant]
Yes, our build tool.
> mvn test -Dtest=SMTPServerTest
Ant, apparently, supports the same.
--- Noel
--
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
A "command line fan" like you should be much
more excited by maven than by ant: maven stands to ant like unix-shell
stands to the dos prompt ;-)
I think that using maven we could simply configure our pom to run unit
tests just before the scm:checkin target.
---
mvn -Dm
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
By the way, is there a way to run a single, specific, unit test?
--- Noel
I bet you thought to something starting with the letters "a", "n" and
"t".. but you didn't specify it, so here is the answer:
mvn test -Dtest=SMTPServerTest
:-)
Stefano
-
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
To make everyone happy, why not have a default goal, which runs tests,
builds james, etc. And one goal which compiles james too, just without
the tests.
For what benefit? How hard would it be to run `ant dist-liter` instead of
`ant`. That doesn't address the "problem",
> To make everyone happy, why not have a default goal, which runs tests,
> builds james, etc. And one goal which compiles james too, just without
> the tests.
For what benefit? How hard would it be to run `ant dist-liter` instead of
`ant`. That doesn't address the "problem", if there even is a
> We should run the unit tests every time we build using ant, that is
> the official way to build James.
Since when? And ant is the only way I build JAMES, so you're talking about
adding 8 minutes to every build, instead of a few seconds. As Bernd said,
independent of me, doing that will cause p
Hi Danny,
> One way to achieve this would be to break james out into many small
> library "projects", that way you can narrow your focus to a single
> area by depending upon the jars of the things you don't want to change
> and therfore don't want to test. its what we do at work but we use
> Maven
Oh just listen to yourselves!
We should run the unit tests every time we build using ant, that is
the official way to build James.
Anything anyone does with any other tools is not our concern, we can't
control it so we should step back from getting involved.
If running the tests is a problem be
On 11/11/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > And I will think about using Eclipse when it has an editor worthy of
being
> > called one.
> Then you probably want to try Intellij IDEA.
Really? Does it integrate with emacs -- The One True Editor?
Well, it
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > And I will think about using Eclipse when it has an editor worthy of
being
> > called one.
> Then you probably want to try Intellij IDEA.
Really? Does it integrate with emacs -- The One True Editor?
> But we are drifting away into religious topics... ;-)
Ya think?
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> should be easy to write some plug-in for vim/emacs to run a single
> unit test, shouldn't it?
The direct approach would be to add something to our ant script.
> IDEs are at their best if they support you fully on working on the
> developers current stuff _only_.
IDEs g
On 11/11/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Agreed. While developing, only relevant tests should be run.
> Many people achive this by letting the IDE compile (incrementally) and
> run only tests they choose.
> But those developing using command line could g
On 11/11/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > By the way, is there a way to run a single, specific, unit test?
> In IDEs like Eclipse
Let's talk about real tools (i.e., emacs and javac) shall we? ;-)
should be easy to write some plug-in for vim/emacs to
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Agreed. While developing, only relevant tests should be run.
> Many people achive this by letting the IDE compile (incrementally) and
> run only tests they choose.
> But those developing using command line could get annoyed.
Exactly.
And I will think about using Eclips
On 11/11/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except for one thing ... a build takes a few seconds, even from scratch,
and
> the unit tests take anywhere from 3 minutes on up, especially the very
slow
> IMAP-related tests.
To put this in perspective, on my normal working environment,
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > By the way, is there a way to run a single, specific, unit test?
> In IDEs like Eclipse
Let's talk about real tools (i.e., emacs and javac) shall we? ;-)
> JUnit has some stand-alone utilities for this (test runner).
Something that we can integrate with ant?
> Except for one thing ... a build takes a few seconds, even from scratch,
and
> the unit tests take anywhere from 3 minutes on up, especially the very
slow
> IMAP-related tests.
To put this in perspective, on my normal working environment, the unit tests
take almost 8 minutes to run. If we put t
On 11/10/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way, is there a way to run a single, specific, unit test?
In IDEs like Eclipse with JUnit integration this is only a right mouse
click away.
JUnit has some stand-alone utilities for this (test runner).
Bernd
-
On 11/10/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently, unit tests have to be run separate with
> "ant run-unit-tests"
> This makes it very easy to forget to run them prio to a commit.
But that's not the highest duty cycle. I agree that people should run the
tests before they comm
By the way, is there a way to run a single, specific, unit test?
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Currently, unit tests have to be run separate with
> "ant run-unit-tests"
> This makes it very easy to forget to run them prio to a commit.
But that's not the highest duty cycle. I agree that people should run the
tests before they commit, but forgettfulness is not sufficient justification
to
+1
On 11/10/06, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Currently, unit tests have to be run separate with
"ant run-unit-tests"
This makes it very easy to forget to run them prio to a commit.
For me, unit tests are integral part of the quality management of the
code base, not just an a
+1
Norman
Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
+1
Like maven does by deafult.
Stefano
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Hi,
Currently, unit tests have to be run separate with
"ant run-unit-tests"
This makes it very easy to forget to run them prio to a commit.
For me, unit tests are integral part of the quality
+1
Like maven does by deafult.
Stefano
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
Hi,
Currently, unit tests have to be run separate with
"ant run-unit-tests"
This makes it very easy to forget to run them prio to a commit.
For me, unit tests are integral part of the quality management of the
code base, not just
Hi,
Currently, unit tests have to be run separate with
"ant run-unit-tests"
This makes it very easy to forget to run them prio to a commit.
For me, unit tests are integral part of the quality management of the
code base, not just an appendix on the outer rim of the James source
code universe.
39 matches
Mail list logo
