On 2/12/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There's been enough innovation to warrant a new release in the next few weeks. I expect it to be another alpha quality release, because we haven't addressed the current deficiencies in the Dialog implementation.
It would be really useful, for the purposes of the discussion here, to get some feedback on anything missing in the test framework. it was primarily designed for testing *applications* and *components*, but might have some missing stuff for testing the MyFaces implementation artifacts. Let's figure out what you guys need.
Craig
Craig,
Do you think we can count on another (more up to date) release of
Shale in the next month or so? It can be alpha, beta or final - it
doesn't matter. We just need to be able to rely on a maven artifact
that is not SNAPSHOT.
There's been enough innovation to warrant a new release in the next few weeks. I expect it to be another alpha quality release, because we haven't addressed the current deficiencies in the Dialog implementation.
It would be really useful, for the purposes of the discussion here, to get some feedback on anything missing in the test framework. it was primarily designed for testing *applications* and *components*, but might have some missing stuff for testing the MyFaces implementation artifacts. Let's figure out what you guys need.
Craig
@ Dennis,
I think its safe to add a *test* dependency to the shale mock stuff.
Just don't check it in until we make our branch for the upcoming
release. (I'll try and get to that today.) Then hopefully we can get
another Shale release by the time we need to release the core again.
If not, we can always take out the unit tests (temporarily) before we
release.
Ultimately if you don't mind doing the work on this I think its a
great idea. I made the point on the list a while ago that it doesn't
really make sense for us to be maintaining two sets of mock objects
between the two projects. So lets start with the new tests you are
writing and then once we know for sure that we can depend on another
Shale release you can convert the rest (if you're up to it.)
If you need to patch the mock stuff let me know and I can commit your
patches since I'm a committer on that project as well.
Regards,
Sean
On 2/11/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/11/06, Sean Schofield < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know enough about our Mock objects or Shale to say whether
> > this is a good idea but I suspect it is a good idea.
> >
> > Now that commons is released you can add new mock stuff there. Just
> > don't add the tests to impl for a day or two until we create the
> > branch. Make sense?
> >
> > I'd like to know more about your proposal for using Shale. It sounds
> > like it would be a good idea but I don't personally have the time to
> > investigate it.
> >
> > @Craig: Is Shale officially alpha yet?
>
> 1.0.0 is officially alpha, but there's been lots of improvements in the
> test framework since then. (And, a lot of improvements and new features in
> the other areas too.)
>
> Craig
>
> > @Wendy: There are snapshots being posted now right?
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On 2/11/06, Dennis Byrne < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have a couple unit tests for org.apache.myfaces.config w/ a dependency
> on some of the stuff in org.apache.myfaces.mock.api . This causes a build
> error.
> > >
> > > I take it tests in impl cannot have build deps on stuff from the tests
> in api ? Will moving the mock classes to commons solve this ? And if so,
> will this interfere/complicate the current staged release activities .
> > >
> > > If I can get enough votes to replace all of our Mock objects with Shale,
> I will do the grunt work.
> > >
> > > Dennis Byrne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
