OK then. Does anyone have any objections against the names of the annotations?
Uli On 12.12.2011 23:26, Howard Lewis Ship wrote: > Anything that makes testing easier is a win for me. Being able to put > these onto a the class being tested (or a common base class) should > help quite a bit. > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Ulrich Stärk <[email protected]> wrote: >> Right now, integration tests need several configuration parameters which are >> read from a testng.xml >> file by default, see [1]. >> >> Most IDEs come with a TestNG integration that allows classes or methods to >> be run as TestNG tests. >> Right now this doesn't work without writing XML when the tests need >> configuration other than the >> default. On the other hand this is quite handy when developing a single >> feature or trying to fix a >> bug without wanting to run the whole suite. You could write a simplified >> testng.xml file but you'd >> still need to do that manually. >> >> I therefore propose to introduce annotations for these settings: >> >> @WebAppFolder - for the tapestry.web-app-folder parameter >> @ServletContainer - for the tapestry.servlet-container parameter >> @ContextPath - for the tapestry.context-path parameter >> @Port - for the tapestry.port parameter >> @SSLPort - for the tapestry.ssl-port parameter >> @BrowserStartCommand - for the tapestry.browser-start-command parameter >> >> with the annotations taking precedence over settings from the xml file which >> in turn take precedence >> over the defaults. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Uli >> >> [1] >> http://tapestry.apache.org/integration-testing.html#IntegrationTesting-Configuration >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
