On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mention that properties, etc. are low-cost enough
> for setup; obviously so. My concern was actually for
> compilation of support classes (e.g. testing );
> I would hate to keep compiling and blowing away a
> bunch of classes in eac
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The AntUnit documentation says:
> >
> > "Each test target is run in a fresh Ant project;
> i.e.
> > each test target has a fresh set of properties and
> > references."
>
> I think it
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fun part: if we change the behavior to suit the
> documentation, the utility of beforeTests/afterTests
> is pretty much reduced to filesystem artifacts.
Or other expensive set up code like preparing a database or starting
an applica
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The AntUnit documentation says:
>
> "Each test target is run in a fresh Ant project; i.e.
> each test target has a fresh set of properties and
> references."
I think it should better be the way the documentation says, even
though it is
Matt Benson wrote:
The AntUnit documentation says:
"Each test target is run in a fresh Ant project; i.e.
each test target has a fresh set of properties and
references." But if I have test targets:
one will fail, as I would expect given
The AntUnit documentation says:
"Each test target is run in a fresh Ant project; i.e.
each test target has a fresh set of properties and
references." But if I have test targets:
one will fail, as I would expect given that the
AntUnit code
