On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Michael McCandless > <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: >> >> Maybe a simple compromise: could we make a new ant target, >> "run-specific-test-for-certain", whose purpose was to run that test >> and fail if no such test was not found? I think it's fine if this >> only works at the "module" level, if ant makes it too hairy to >> recurse. >> > > But is that really a compromise or will it only lead to increased > complexity? I can see how i would implement this now, > e.g. i'd just create a fileset of build/*pattern.class and fail if it > was non-empty, and then invoke 'test' target. > > But I'm worried the simple compromise would lead us down a slippery > slope, once we opened the can of worms, someone would eventually want > it to validate that you didn't typo the -Dtestmethod too right?
I'm less concerned about that -- if you typo that, then all tests run, right? That becomes quickly obvious user error :) I think the other direction (BUILD SUCCESSFUL when the test did not in fact run) is much worse: it's non-obvious user error. You go away gleeful that your test passed. > And someone might be upset that my simple solution fails always if > they run clean first (since class file doesnt exist), or that it > doesnt fail if the test is @Ignored, or @Nightly and they forgot to > supply -Dtests.nightly, or @BadApples or @Slow, or throws an > assumption always because it suppresses Lucene3xCodec and you supply > -Dtests.codec=Lucene3x, or ... (it goes on and on and on). And one > could argue tehse are all traps and its trappy if we dont fix it. :) Actually I think these would be good failures, i.e. if it was a nightly test and I did not specify -Dtests.nightly then it should fail, so I know something went wrong when I tried to run "the one test". I think the restriction of "you must be in the module's directory" is acceptable. In fact, this would close another test trap I've hit, where I run a single test (spelled correctly!), yet the test hit an Assume, appears to pass (BUILD SUCCESSFUL) but actually did not run anything, I commit, test then fails in jenkins for a stupid reason and I'm like "WTF? I swear I tested it". Net/net I think your simple solution would be great? Really I just want a "run this exact test name, for sure!" test target. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
