>
> buildRule.executeTarget("test1");
> ==> could the BuildFileRule use a default (test name) for executeTarget?
> buildRule.executeTarget();
>
I'm not sure it can - the same build file is often used for multiple tests,
each calling a different target, so how would we know which target was
intending to be called? If we were to change the general testing practice
to have an individual build XML for each test then this would be fine,
although I'm not sure this would be the right way to go. Alternatively we
could have an executeTarget() method that executes a default target (e.g.
"test") or incrementally executes targets for that class ("test1" on first
call, "test2" on the second call"), but this seems like it would just be
introducing complexity into BuildFileRule to force a specific convention.
I'd be interested in other's opinions on this though.
> //TODO assert exception message
> Here the rule ExpectedException would help
>
Agreed, although the problem still remains that we're not asserting we have
the right exception: how do we know Ant hasn't thrown a build exception
about a missing attribute when the test is expecting it to throw a
BuildException about now being able to create a temporary file? Working out
the exception messages and moving to ExpectedException is currently planned
to be part of my second phase of migration. There are some tests where we
have multiple exception asserts grouped into a single method so I need to
spit these into individual methods to allow the ExpectedException rule to
be used, but I plan on doing this as part of the exception testing cleanup.
Thanks,
Michael
