Hi again, I've been fixing PMD-CPD-Checkstyle errors, by now PMD warnings could be considered trivial since they're detected on Deprecated methods/constructor, there is a CPD warning I'd like to fix:
File Line org/apache/commons/digester/SetNextRule.java 198 org/apache/commons/digester/SetRootRule.java 191 SetNextRule[1] class looks like to SetRootRule[2], what do you think about adding an abstract class that generalizes the behavior of both classes? Thanks in advance, have a nice day!!! Simo [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/digester/SetNextRule.java [2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/digester/SetRootRule.java http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi all, >> just to give you a brief recap of the completed actions: >> - tests have been migrated to JUnit 4; >> - project structure has been moved to default Maven archetype structure; >> - ant build & config have been removed; >> - whole documentation has been moved to site, in the xdoc format. >> > <snip/> > > Great :-) > > >> There still is the 'examples' dir that's using ant to build the small >> subprojects, what do you think on moving them too to a maven build? > <snap/> > > I don't think thats a requirement for the next release. I also don't > think we want to introduce a multi-module m2 build for digester, so > best to keep that build on its own (even if moved to m2) as it is now. > > In effect -- if someone wants to do it, sure. > > -Rahul > > >> Thanks in advance, have a nice day :) >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Unfortunately they are just components mocks used in proper unit >>> tests, they don't contain test methods, so 1) should be the better >>> solution. >>> Thanks Seb! >>> Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 1 September 2010 09:24, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> migrating to Junit4 I met a small issue that can be easily resolved in >>>>> more that 1 way, I'd like to discuss with you how we want doing it: >>>>> >>>>> Tests in error: >>>>> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.xmlrules.TestDigesterRulesSource) >>>>> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.plugins.TestObject) >>>>> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.TestObjectCreationFactory) >>>>> initializationError(org.apache.commons.digester.xmlrules.TestObject) >>>>> >>>>> These classes are not unit test at all but rather classes to support >>>>> tests, but because of the name pattern, surefire tries to execute them >>>>> as unit test, but Junit4 fails because no test methods are present in >>>>> these classes. >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK we can fix it in 2 ways: >>>>> >>>>> 1) renaming all the class name; >>>>> 2) adding fake test methods >>>>> >>>>> I'm for 1, what do you suggest to proceed? >>>> >>>> Or one can: >>>> >>>> 3) Add exclusions to the POM. >>>> - just added for completeness, as I prefer 1) >>>> >>>> However, if there is a useful test that can be added to a support >>>> class, then 2) is the way to go. >>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance, best regards! >>>>> Simo >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Thanks a lot guys, >>>>>> now the scope is much more clear to me. I'll proceed according to what >>>>>> we agreed. >>>>>> Have a nice day!!! >>>>>> Simo >>>>>> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:22 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 31 August 2010 22:54, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Simone Tripodi >>>>>>>> <simone.trip...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>>> one more question: what about keeping or removing the Test >>>>>>>>> classes/methods that just declare the Suite? AFAIK are not more >>>>>>>>> needed... >>>>>>>> <snip/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't have a strong opinion -- if someone wants to do it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Forgot to say I'm +1 on removing these. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just need to be careful in case there is a suite which is used to >>>>>>> ensure that certain tests are run in a particular order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Otherwise, the main() and suite() methods are unnecessary, and it's >>>>>>> too easy to add a test class and forget to add the class to the suite. >>>>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
