On 1/4/13 4:45 PM, "Alex Huang" <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote:

>Hi Chip,
>
>Not sure what happened with the code there.  The likelihood of javelin
>changes breaking any existing unit tests is fairly low because we didn't
>do in place code changes.  Still it will be our responsibility to make
>sure everything is running before the merge back to master.

I think replacing the injection framework with Spring may break some unit
tests. 


>
>Please see my email with the [MERGE] tag for details.  We can take up any
>additional questions there as a process for merging back.
>
>--Alex
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 9:03 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Javelin branch pom.xml skipping tests
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> David and I were looking at the build for the javelin branch (he setup
>> a build job on builds.a.o for it), and we were wondering what the
>> state of the unit tests were.  I know that the folks working on that
>> branch are planning to propose a merge of the code, but I figured that
>> an early indicator of what the state of things looked like would be
>> the unit tests.
>> 
>> Currently, the root pom.xml in that branch has
>> <skipTests>true</skipTests> in it.  When I remove that line and do a
>> "mvn clean install", I get an error in the Utils project:
>> 
>> Tests in error:
>>   testSimpleQueryBuilder(com.cloud.utils.db.QueryBuilderTest)
>> 
>> That causes most of the other projects to be skipped, so we don't know
>> what failures are beyond the one above.
>> 
>> Some questions:
>> 
>> 1 - Can we get the tests functional as part of the process of
>> preparing for a merge?
>> 
>> 2 - Can we plan on not skipping unit tests as part of the default
>> build from now on? (skipTests was in there from the initial creation
>> of pom.xml in the master branch, so this wasn't done within Javelin
>> obviously).
>> 
>> 3 - How are you guys running the unit tests for your refactoring work?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> -chip

Reply via email to