I agree which is why having the ability to get the jar built with a
different target was proposed.  My fear with a property is users will just
shove maven.no.test.fail=true ( or something ) in their build.properties and
forget its there and defeat the regression aspect of the unit tests.

=================================================================
Jeffrey D. Brekke                                   Quad/Graphics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                              http://www.qg.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:44 PM
> To: Turbine Maven Users List
> Subject: RE: Calling <fail/> if <junit/> fails
> 
> 
> 
> 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]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to