Hi Gilles,
Le 26/06/2011 13:00, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:41:09AM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
I think there are some naming conventions. Try using Abstract in the name
(there are other examples in our tests base) so that gump doesn't attempt to
run it directly.
In fact, the proper naming scheme for maven is XxxAbstractTest (see the
configuration for maven-surefire-plugin in pom.xml).
I can understand that there would be some version difference between tools
run locally and by gump (e.g. the Java version target set to 1.5) but why
would gump have other conventions for picking up test classes than what is
defined in the "commons-math" configuration (supposing everything necessary
is defined in trunk...).
I think Gump relies on ant and Continuum relies on Maven. Maven also
relies on the surefire plugin to run the tests, and surefire relies on
Junit. So there are a lot of intermediate steps between a build system
(Gump, Continuum, direct use of ant, direct use of Maven, Eclipse,
Eclipse with maven plugin ...) and the low level Junit runs. This may
explain the differences.
I have already noticed that many tools do not have the same algorithm to
select classes to test. A recent example was the performance tests for
FastMath. Maven skip these tests because they do not end in "Test", but
Eclipse for example does not skip them because it directly look inside
the class and find the @Test annotations.
There is clearly no ideal solution, but I think having different build
systems to suit several users needs is better. Having different tools
help finding different bugs.
best regards,
Luc
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
