imo we should keep it simple. #1 it should be as simple as possible to execute the tests #2 tests for the jsf api should be executed with the first possible version as well as "all" later versions (e.g. 2.0.2 -> 2.1.0+ -> 2.2.0+ ...).
a solution which meets both will get my +1 regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2011/7/29 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> > Hi > > I think there are many ways to do it. For example, you can play with > source paths and maven profiles. For example the following code is > valid: > > <profiles> > <profile> > <id>tests-jsf-21</id> > <activation> > <property> > <name>jsf</name> > <value>21</value> > </property> > </activation> > <build> > <plugins> > <plugin> > <artifactId>maven-war-plugin</artifactId> > <configuration> > <webResources> > <resource> > <directory>src/main/webapp21</directory> > </resource> > </webResources> > </configuration> > </plugin> > </plugins> > </build> > </profile> > > You can include source, resource, or webappp directories based on a > profile. > > We can do trick about run in for jsf 2.0, create an specific task for > hudson and "playing" with the profiles. Note we don't need to generate > any artifacts or even release them. The only thing we need is run them > periodically. > > The problem about have the code in different locations is the same we > had with shared module: to compile one we need compile the other one. > That's other reason why I'm proposing move everything instead keep two > copies. > > regards, > > Leonardo > > 2011/7/29 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > > @jakob: +1 > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > 2011/7/29 Jakob Korherr <[email protected]> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I would like to do it exactly like we did it in MyFaces-Test, however > >> not exactly like you're proposing. As you said, MyFaces-Test keeps the > >> most code in the 1.2 module and the 2.0 module just takes what it > >> needs. But what you're proposing is to move all integration-tests to > >> 2.1 and also run it with 2.0 in some kind of way.. > >> > >> I would like to have the 2.0 integration-tests really in the 2.0 > >> branch. If some of them (or as you pointed out: most of them) also > >> apply to the 2.1 branch, the 2.1 branch should re-use them dynamically > >> and not the other way round. > >> > >> Thus it would be like this: 2.0 branch provides all 2.0 applicable > >> tests, 2.1 branch re-uses the tests which also apply for 2.1 and adds > >> some 2.1 specific ones. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jakob > >> > >> 2011/7/28 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>: > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > Some weeks ago a new module for integration test was added. See. > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3217 > >> > > >> > The code proposed was committed on 2.0.x branch. In the following mail > >> > we'll discuss if we should move this to current trunk (2.1.x) or > >> > create and maintain two copies: one in 2.0.x and the other one in > >> > 2.1.x (trunk). > >> > > >> > I agree that both branches are still used a lot and are being > >> > maintained actively. But I think maintain two branches of the same > >> > testing code seems to be an unnecessary burden. I think we can put > >> > this in just one place an make it run with 2.0. / 2.1 with just some > >> > maven configuration. > >> > > >> > Note 2.0.x and 2.1.x are very similar. In practice, every time we > >> > found an issue in 2.1.x, the same patch is applied to 2.0.x too. So it > >> > is not necessary to run the integration tests for 2.0.x branch because > >> > in practice when we run it against 2.1.x, we are taking into account > >> > 2.0.x, as long as the changes be commited on 2.0.x too. > >> > > >> > In few words, put this on trunk does not mean it will not run against > >> > 2.0 !!!!. A "light" way to deal with this kind of problem is take a > >> > look at myfaces tests project. It has two modules: 1.2 and 2.0, and > >> > 2.0 just "take what it needs" from 1.2 module and that's it. This > >> > reduce the burden to the minimum. > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > > >> > Leonardo Uribe > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jakob Korherr > >> > >> blog: http://www.jakobk.com > >> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr > >> work: http://www.irian.at > > > > >
