So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to error then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file in the target folder instead of console? On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Francis, > > thanks a lot. > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set. > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its logical. > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a properties file. > > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting the debug > level to FATAL instead of WARN. > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much benefit in > having the log output there. > What do you think? > > Regards > Rainer > > > Francis De Brabandere wrote: >> Re: revive the release process >> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value is >> provided these are no real exceptions. >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN >> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level and >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to >> hide the traces >> >> What do you think? >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De >> Brabandere<[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Rainer, >> > >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening. >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested), >> >> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, I >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in order to >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes. >> >> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all >> required legal documents are there. >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me: >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including some >> exceptions. >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are >> confusing. >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running the >> unit tests? >> >> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me. >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for voting? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Rainer >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > http://www.somatik.be >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.somatik.be >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > -- http://www.somatik.be Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
