> Yes, understood now, thanks.
>
> In which case maybe it is worth refactoring into two package-protected
> methods so Unit tests can exercise them easily. It would be useful for
> a Windows developer to be able to test the Unix code too.
>
> Also consider doing this for any other bits of code that
On 18/03/2009, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> > Sorry, I still don't understand why refactoring would be needed in
> > order for the code to be tested using CI?
> >
> > I must be missing something - can you explain?
> > I'm curious to know what the problem is that requires refactoring for CI.
>
> Sorry, I still don't understand why refactoring would be needed in
> order for the code to be tested using CI?
>
> I must be missing something - can you explain?
> I'm curious to know what the problem is that requires refactoring for CI.
Sorry for beeing unclear. Refactoring is big term for "ext
On 18/03/2009, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> So we don't have a continues
> >> integration test for exactly that problem.
> >
> > IMO it does not matter not having a continuous integration test so
> > long as the OS-specific stuff is tested from time to time by someone,
> > and pa
Hi,
>> So we don't have a continues
>> integration test for exactly that problem.
>
> IMO it does not matter not having a continuous integration test so
> long as the OS-specific stuff is tested from time to time by someone,
> and particularly before release.
>
> Might be a good idea to make a no
On 18/03/2009, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> test works on OSX - but we cannot really test on *nix boxes if the
> name-normalizing works on windows too. "if system == windows" wouldn't
> give back "windows" at the gump servers. So we don't have a continues
> integration test for exactly
Hi,
test works on OSX - but we cannot really test on *nix boxes if the
name-normalizing works on windows too. "if system == windows" wouldn't
give back "windows" at the gump servers. So we don't have a continues
integration test for exactly that problem.
Question is, if we should refactor more to
On 2009-03-17, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi
I could not test it with a general working testcase, since this is a
platform problem and i have only OSX.
>> I have written some rudimentary tests that pass on Windows.
> can those test run successfully on *NIX too? (Gump is running t
Hi
>>> I could not test it with a general working testcase, since this is a
>>> platform problem and i have only OSX.
>
> I have written some rudimentary tests that pass on Windows.
can those test run successfully on *NIX too? (Gump is running those on
a unix platform too). I can test the test
On 2009-03-17, sebb wrote:
> On 17/03/2009, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> just made a quick fix for SANDBOX-284:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANDBOX-284
>> I could not test it with a general working testcase, since this is a
>> platform problem and i have only OSX.
On 17/03/2009, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> just made a quick fix for SANDBOX-284:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANDBOX-284
>
> I could not test it with a general working testcase, since this is a
> platform problem and i have only OSX.
> However, GUMP will not run on w
Hi all,
just made a quick fix for SANDBOX-284:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SANDBOX-284
I could not test it with a general working testcase, since this is a
platform problem and i have only OSX.
However, GUMP will not run on windows too, i guess. I think here is
some refactoring necessar
12 matches
Mail list logo
