> Ok, thanks. What I don't understand is what is this Resources.java file in > test06?
It's not test06, it's testIncludedResources :-) Felipe, any idea? It's not commented and its use is not obvious to > me. The fact that there is no sourceDirectory defined and that the test > still passes seem to indicate it's not required and it should be deleted. Is > this true? ;-) Yes, I guess it's not necessary. > WAR are there!). Would it be possible to comment all files that are > committed so that we have at least the same level of comment quality than > what exists in the rest of Cactus? We don't need to overdo it, but anywhere > where it's not obvious would be much welcome... :-) I do commit every file, but sometimes I use the same comment for a recursive commit (that's what happened in this case). So, I think we should either document the class itself or, better yet, document what the test case does in the <description> (at the POM level). > This seems completely useless to me and we've paid great attention in all > the rest of the Cactus code not to have this (because it's not useful IMO). > Let me know if there's a reason I don't see! :-) Ok. > Last, the rule we have followed so far in Cactus was to name JUnit tests > with the following pattern: TestXXXX.java. I know lots of people prefer the > pattern XXXTest.java (I also do prefer it now - I didn't some time back). Ok, I'm fine with that. > The problem is that we have to be consistent and follow the existing > pattern. If we want to change it, fine, I'm all for it, but we would need to > change it for all files (which can be done in a scattered way). Agreed - convention is important. BTW, what about defining a default package for testcase classes (for instance, org.apache.cactus.testcases.maven)? -- Felipe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
