[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the (no more present) method was empty, which is also not right.
We could
1. make oata.BuildFileTest.tearDown() public
2. write the ModifiedSelectorTest.BFT.tearDown() with super-call.
I would prefer the first one, but are there any reasons for
that method being protected?
Just did a test with 1. - there are some other child classes infected:
"... cannot override tearDown() in
org.apache.tools.ant.BuildFileTest;
attempting to assign weaker access privileges; was public"
oh bugger. Since we cannot be 100% sure who is using this stuff
downstream, and setup/teardown gets overridden so often
I have just done (2) without the super-call, because if done properly
we'd have to add throws Exception everywhere. Which is what ought to be
done, both for setUp and tearDown.
I think your cleanup proposals are all valid, but we still need to think
about who may be using ant-testutils. I have just checked the smartfrog
ant tasks and while I used them, I hadn't overridden teardown. I had
overridden setUp and not called super.setUp(), which I have just fixed,
along with adding the relevant exception to the signature. But I dont
know what other projects there are. Maybe gump will tell us.
-steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
