You can always add the maven.test.ignore.failure to the maven command to ignore the results of the tests: mvn -Dmaven.tests.ignore.failure=true ...
Regards, Bruno 2006/2/10, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Separate but related question. If a unit test fails the "install" > fails. Will this prevent our website from showing the failed tests if > continuum is building with: mvn clean install deploy site-deploy > -Pgenerate-assembly,generate-site ? > > I have a feeling we may want to break this up into two commands: > > mvn clean install deploy > mvn -Pgenerate-assembly, generate-site > > This way the failed unit tests get published. They are not failing on > the zone b/c of the JDK but eventually someone will break a unit test > there too. > > Thoughts? > > Sean > > On 2/10/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Building local with 1.4.2_08 yields ... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Battery: org.apache.myfaces.component.html.ext.HtmlDataTableTest > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 2, Time elapsed: 0.25 sec > > > > testGetClientIdFacesContext(org.apache.myfaces.component.html.ext.HtmlDataTableTest) > > Time elapsed: 0.063 sec <<< ERROR! > > > > <snip/> > > > > java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: > > java.lang.StringBuffer.insert(ILjava/lang/CharSequence;)Ljava/lang/StringBuffer; > > at > > javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.getPathToComponent(UIComponentBase.java:793) > > at > > javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.getPathToComponent(UIComponentBase.java:764) > > at > > javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.getRenderer(UIComponentBase.java:747) > > at > > javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.getClientId(UIComponentBase.java:226) > > at javax.faces.component.UIData.getClientId(UIData.java:463) > > at > > > > <snip/> > > > > This is a JSSE 5.0 language feature I assume? I know this subject > > comes up from timt to time. For now I think we should stick to 1.4 > > for tomahawk don't you think? > > > > Sean > > >
