[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2667?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12570621#action_12570621
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-2667:
-------------------------------------------
Is the check for (running != null) necessary? I don't see how it could be null.
First two lines use spaces for indentation, the rest use tabs. Would be good to
use one of them consistently. Since the surrounding code uses spaces, I think
that's the best option.
Should the call to getFailureFolder() also be moved inside the if? Then we
don't create a folder unless we have to.
Would it make sense to put a try/finally block inside the catch block and
re-throw the exception in the finally clause? This way we make sure that the
original exception is not hidden if saving derby.log fails for some reason.
> Create more robust junit TestRunner for running derby tests
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2667
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2667
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Test
> Affects Versions: 10.3.1.4
> Reporter: Kathey Marsden
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: DERBY-2667_diff_02_06.txt, DERBY-2667_diff_02_15.txt,
> DERBY-2667_diff_2_19.txt, DERBY-2667_stat_02_06.txt,
> DERBY-2667_stat_02_15.txt, DERBY-2667_stat_02_19.txt,
> JUnitMethodTrace.diff.txt, JUnitMethodTrace_Extra.diff.txt, MemRunner.java,
> TimeRunner.java
>
>
> Provide a more full featured TestRunner for Derby testing.
> junit.textui.TestRunner is not very robust. It does not for example print the
> tests as they run or print chained exceptions, create separate files for the
> full report and just failures. It would be great to have a standardized
> TestRunner that everyone uses. Perhaps someone already has one that they
> would like to contribute as a starter.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
