* Vincent Tence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-30 14:52]: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alain Javier Guarnieri del Gesu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:18 AM > > To: 'Maven Users List' > > Subject: Re: "src/java" or "src/main/java" ? > > > > > > * Vincent Tence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-30 11:26]: > > > I second that as well. Good design + proper use of mock objects > > > solve almost 100% of the needs for external dependencies on the > > > unit tests, whether test files or environment dependencies such as > > > the need to have a DB running. Keep in mind that the easiest and > > > the fastest it is to run the unit tests, the more you'll run them. > > > And it is definitly easier to run a test without external > > > dependencies, since you remove the risk of having your test fail > > > because of invalid or missing resources. > > > > > > Of course this only applies to unit tests. Integration tests and > > > acceptance tests are another story. > > > > Sound argument. Are you suggesting then that a distinction be made > > between unit, integeration, and acceptence tests in the project > > directory structure? > > I would love to see the distinction between unit tests, > integration tests and acceptance tests built-in in Maven. > > Unit tests (under src/test) are run everytime I built. Integration and > Acceptance (or Customer) tests are not.
Which would also make it easier to distinguish in reporting. Your acceptence tests may all pass, thus your product is ready for delivery, but the unit tests on the 2.0 features are failing (test first, of couse). If there is no distinction, there is nothing to show the customer, unless you're in the mood for hand waving. -- Alain Javier Guarnieri del Gesu - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
