On 9/28/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/28/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there are no objections, I propose to start on this tomorrow (Friday) > and get it done before the weekend -- therefore before I head down to > the Bay Area to speak at the AJAX World Conference. No objections, and I'll be around this weekend and Monday to make minor adjustments if necessary. > PS: While in Prague earlier this week, I had a chance to have dinner with > Jason van Zyl of Maven fame. It sounds like the issue we have with > resolution of transitive dependencies are going to get addressed in Maven > 2.1, and he plans to have some test builds available for us (and others) to > try later this year. Neat. :) Did you talk about integration testing also?
I went into the dinner hoping too ... but Czech beer is pretty good stuff :-). Actually, I've started (a little) to buy into the argument that integration tests are sufficiently complicated that they deserve their own project -- or, more precisely, projects. The advantage of a separation is that you can have more than one suite of integration tests, each of which might be focused on different aspects -- and it will be more motivating to the developer to actually run the tests at all if he/she can choose the ones focused on a particular functional area. That being said, we're currently doing a combination of integrated and separated integration tests -- the "itest" profile for something like shale-blank or shale-usecases does integration testing on the app, while the "itest" profile for shale-test-xxxxx type apps are really integration tests for the framework modules that correspond to xxxxx. This is definitely a topic that deserves more discussion in Maven-land. It may well be that I have a minority opinion -- but it's worth exploring in more detail (if it hasn't been rehashed ad nauseum before). --
Wendy
Craig
