Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Vishal Vishnoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thus, the above can be the default, as it's simple and work for most
people. AntUnit should consider providing an attribute which make
naming a combination of project and target name. Here's an example
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Vishal Vishnoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus, the above can be the default, as it's simple and work for most
> people. AntUnit should consider providing an attribute which make
> naming a combination of project and target name. Here's an example
>
>
I'd rather want to m
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Vladimir Egorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The absolute path to build file depends on the system.
Agreed.
> In JUnit, the fully-qualified class name does not depend on the
> system.
I'm with Vishal here, the project name probably maps better to the
fully qualified class n
To: user@ant.apache.org
Subject: Re: AntUnit tests need fully-qualified names
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Vladimir Egorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The plainlistener that comes with AntUnit uses test target names as
results names.
The plainlistener is more or less just a proof of concept.
dimir
P.S. I don't see any problem with separating (relative path to) build
file and target name.
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:16 PM
To: user@ant.apache.org
Subject: Re: AntUnit tests need fully-qualified names
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Vladimir Egorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The plainlistener that comes with AntUnit uses test target names as
> results names.
The plainlistener is more or less just a proof of concept. When I put
it together I needed someting to quickly show to myself that AntUnit
really
