From what I've seen, it seems to be a prereq of any released commons component that ALL unit tests must pass. This is one of the reasons that I've never had a doubt about creating a dependency on any project from commons.
So, while invoking these tests from your own project does seem safe, it also seems unnecessary. The [lang] developers (which of course includes you) are already ensuring that all of the tests pass and that the code is solid.
Now if you're depending on the CVS HEAD, that's a different story. But even in that case, running the tests whenever you do a cvs update seems to be enough.
Although, releasing a unit test jar is an interesting idea.
Summary: A released version of any project passes all tests. Why create the extra work for yourself?
Gary Gregory wrote:
Hello,
I'll start this topic on [lang] and [codec] only since I am active here.
I am considering adding to the unit test suite of /my/ project the unit tests of 3rd party libraries. Why do this? As a simple sanity check. Our project uses [lang], [codec], [pool], [cli], [collections], Xerces, Xalan. I would like the confidence added to /my/ project, that all of these pieces are working as advertised and that no side effects exists.
This is why I would like to suggest that [lang] and [codec] deliver their unit tests in jar files instead of plain source.
A secondary point I have not thought through is how do you know which tests to invoke. The build.xml file contains a test target which I could invoke from my build file but I like to use the Ant/Junit reporting feature. I do not want to impose this requirement on the build.xml file for a project of course.
Any thought? Am I nuts? Paranoid?
Thanks, Gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
