Shane Duan wrote:
here you go. Like I said, just to remove a field that is not really being used.
yep - you're right. it is redundant and I agree it can be removed.
On a side note:
As I ran all the behaviours to make sure that everything still works,
I realized that we have reverted the behaviour collection to this:
public Class[] getBehaviours() {
return new Class[] {UsingCollectionMatchersBehaviour.class,
UsingEqualityMatchersBehaviour.class,
UsingLogicalMatchersBehaviour.class,
UsingExceptionsBehaviour.class,
UsingMatchersBehaviour.class,
UsingStringMatchersBehaviour.class,
BehaviourClassBehaviour.class,
BehaviourMethodBehaviour.class,
BehaviourVerifierBehaviour.class,
PlainTextMethodListenerBehaviour.class,
MiniMockObjectBehaviour.class,
UsingMiniMockBehaviour.class,
ExpectationBehaviour.class,
ResultBehaviour.class,
org.jbehave.core.story.AllBehaviours.class,
org.jbehave.core.matchers.AllBehaviours.class,
JBehaveFrameworkErrorBehaviour.class,
};
Com'on, you gota admit this is not going to scale and someone will
make a mistake sooner or later, if not already.
I know the reason behind removing the reference to cotta but I don't
think this is a working solution either. I think I have a good
solution. What about using cotta for test only. I have created a
jbehave extension in cotta and used it in my other projects so that
the behaviour collection is like this:
public Class[] getBehaviours() {
return new BehavioursLoader(getClass()).loadBehaviours();
}
+1 to a test-scoped cotta dependency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
