I've never used invoker or verifier, so still have to make my opinion. I just had many issues configuring testing-harness with required maven components : I added new feature to my mojos but tests cannot be updated due to some new dependencies introduced that have no stub in testing-harness (or no easy way to get one). Shitty was an easy way to solve this.
AFAIK, shitty is similar to invoker, but does more : it install the current artifact in local repo with version "testing" and invoke a maven build. Seems to be what the invoker it-test do. Shitty alos use groovy scripts to test the result. Nico. 2007/12/13, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > nicolas de loof wrote: > > > shitty is a very simple way to it-test plugins. > > So I've heard... But I've also heard good things about > maven-invoker-plugin. And I've said a lot of good things about > maven-verifier tests. Why use SHITTY and not one of the others? > > Or, let me phrase my question a different way. I think we shouldn't keep > using more and more different IT test plugins; we should narrow it down to > just one or two different ways of doing these tests. > > Do you agree with that? If so, do you think we should use shitty instead > of maven-invoker-plugin? As well as maven-invoker-plugin? Should > everybody just use whatever works? (That's a fair answer, too...) > > -Dan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
