Scott Sanders
Tue, 04 Sep 2001 18:58:59 -0700
Patches are always welcome. As long as the test can still run, the build.xml patch would be appreciated ;-) Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "robert burrell donkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:58 PM Subject: [SUBMIT] Digester matching rules test case > this is an additional test case aimed at matching rules. > it takes the (two) original matching rules tests defined in the basic > DigesterTestCase > and adds another couple. > the main reason for separating out from the basic DigesterTestCase is that > this class should allow subclasses to test extensions of the basic > matching rules. > > i was going to remove the duplicate tests from DigesterTestCase but i don' > t see any real harm in keeping them around (for the moment). > > i couldn't help noticing that the build.xml uses a <java> (ant) task to > perform the tests. the latest version of ant has quite a nice task that > does junit testing that i've used before and i think works pretty well. > the patch for the build script uses the existing method but i'd be willing > to provide a patch converting it to use the ant junit tasks if people > think that's a good idea. > > - robert > > <Attachment missing><Attachment missing><Attachment missing> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > this is an additional test case aimed at matching rules. > it takes the (two) original matching rules tests defined in the basic > DigesterTestCase > and adds another couple. > the main reason for separating out from the basic DigesterTestCase is that > this class should allow subclasses to test extensions of the basic > matching rules. > > i was going to remove the duplicate tests from DigesterTestCase but i don' > t see any real harm in keeping them around (for the moment). > > i couldn't help noticing that the build.xml uses a <java> (ant) task to > perform the tests. the latest version of ant has quite a nice task that > does junit testing that i've used before and i think works pretty well. > the patch for the build script uses the existing method but i'd be willing > to provide a patch converting it to use the ant junit tasks if people > think that's a good idea. > > - robert > >