The workspace for FlexUnit still shows both swcs. Maybe it doesn't clean
up old ones? Anyway, I think that's why the last run still didn't pass.
On 12/23/15, 6:17 AM, "Mihai Chira" wrote:
>Cool. Instead of specifying the swc, though, I got the flexunit
>build.xml to (temporarily) stop compilin
Cool. Instead of specifying the swc, though, I got the flexunit
build.xml to (temporarily) stop compiling the as3 version. This should
achieve the same purpose. (I did this on the develop branch, I guess
that's the one we're using on CI?)
On 22 December 2015 at 17:06, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 1
On 12/22/15, 2:59 AM, "Mihai Chira" wrote:
>>
>> If the answer
>> is to explicitly list the SWCs, that should be straightforward to do.
>
>I suggest that we try to see what happens if we just include the flex
>version of the swc. My guess is that all the unit tests will pass,
>suggesting that t
> That thread seems to be about Flash Builder compatibility. This is just
> Ant stuff, isn't it?
Yes, but it does detail some of the internal logic, logic which may
explain why we're seeing the as3 version of UIImpersonator, despite
the fact that we're also including the flex version of the swc.
That thread seems to be about Flash Builder compatibility. This is just
Ant stuff, isn't it? I don't know if folks explicitly list which SWCs
they want or just point to the whole set of FlexUnit swcs. If the answer
is to explicitly list the SWCs, that should be straightforward to do.
-Alex
On
> I don't know FlexUnit very well. Is it normal to have both the as3 and
> flex version in the library-path so their definitions compete or is it
> normal to only have one or the other? I'm trying to understand whether
> the current situation where both are in the library-path is the default
> an
On 12/18/15, 3:05 AM, "Mihai Chira" wrote:
>> Also note that the compiler shouldn't care as much about the order in
>>the
>> library path as the compile time for the definitions in the SWCs. So if
>> class Foo was compiled into the as3 SWC and then later into the flex
>>SWC,
>> the definition
> Also note that the compiler shouldn't care as much about the order in the
> library path as the compile time for the definitions in the SWCs. So if
> class Foo was compiled into the as3 SWC and then later into the flex SWC,
> the definition in the flex SWC should always win regardless of order.
On 12/17/15, 2:29 AM, "Mihai Chira" wrote:
>> It appears that flex-sdk_test uses the flex-flexunit build on the CI
>> server. Does that mean the flex-flexunit build is not configured to
>> produce the right artifacts for Flex customers. If so, that should
>> probably get fixed.
>
>flex-flexun
> It appears that flex-sdk_test uses the flex-flexunit build on the CI
> server. Does that mean the flex-flexunit build is not configured to
> produce the right artifacts for Flex customers. If so, that should
> probably get fixed.
flex-flexunit does produce both
flexunit-4.3.0-20140410-flex_4.1
It appears that flex-sdk_test uses the flex-flexunit build on the CI
server. Does that mean the flex-flexunit build is not configured to
produce the right artifacts for Flex customers. If so, that should
probably get fixed.
-Alex
On 12/16/15, 7:56 AM, "mihai.ch...@gmail.com on behalf of Mihai C
The two test classes still failing are ones I wrote. They're failing
because UIImpersonator doesn't work correctly, which is a big hint
that in Jenkins we're using a version of FlexUnit that was compiled
for pure AS development, instead of for Flex development. In March
Chris offered to release Fle
12 matches
Mail list logo
