Jeff, defaulting to failure is different to forcing failure without an
alternative....
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
"Brekke, Jeff"
<Jeff.Brekke@q To: 'Turbine Maven Users List'
g.com> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
06/13/02 06:50 Subject: RE: Calling <fail/> if <junit/>
fails
AM
Please respond
to "Turbine
Maven Users
List"
Martin,
If someone chose to implement something like this, the testing stuff
wouldn't change at all. Create another jar target only that doesn't
execute
the unit tests. This would done be in core/build.xml and wouldn't be too
much duplication.
I really hope that having the tests fail the build when the tests fail
remains the default behavior of Maven. It has been my experience with both
Turbine and work projects that if failing tests don't fail the build, most
likely they'll be left failing and the code will not be corrected or the
tests will go stagnant.
One of Maven's aspects that attracted me was it was/is a collection of best
practices with regards to build management/development collected from
various developers experienced in open and closed source java projects. I
hope Maven doesn't turn into ant or a super-duper build tool with the
flexibility to build anything that ever needs building. This is probably
why I keep -1'ing this small change wrt failing tests.
=================================================================
Jeffrey D. Brekke Quad/Graphics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.qg.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin van den Bemt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:45 PM
> To: Turbine Maven Users List
> Subject: RE: Calling <fail/> if <junit/> fails
>
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> As I also stated, is that your approach still needs fixing the current
> test/build.xml to make sure you don't duplicate code.. The current way
> it is done, doesn't leave even room open to implement this, unless you
> like unecessery duplication work ;)
> So in short, you are going to end with a property somehow anyway..
> The rest of my motivations are well expressed already in the earlier
> thread.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 20:20, Brekke, Jeff wrote:
> > The general idea is you wouldn't want to produce the final
> jar if the unit
> > tests are failing. Wouldn't failing unit tests indicate
> the code is not
> > working properly? In reality you can proceed to build the
> site with failing
> > tests showing up in the report. The default jar target
> will not complete
> > though with failing unit tests. It's been brought up
> previously and I'm -1
> > on allowing the user to change this behavior, but would be
> +0 to adding a
> > separate target ( ant maven:jar-not-tested ) to build the
> untested jar
> > without depending on the unit test target.
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
