I guess we disagree, since I believe application quality and code quality
are related. And, further, I believe findbugs at least can identify real,
functional bugs (as opposed to checkstyle).
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:15:34AM -0700, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > OK, understand on the junit headless issue. For checkstyle/findbugs it
> > be useful to fail the nightly build if they do not pass. I will
> > the necessary changes to enable this option, which I hope can be adopted.
> I would not agree. Nightly builds are a courtesy to the user. It would
> be good if we could guarantee that the builds pass the junit tests.
> But it is not relevant to the user whether they pass checkstyle and
> findbugs rules. These tests address the issue of code quality, not of
> application quality.
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:25:20AM -0700, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > > > I notice also that the nightly build target does not run all the
> > > > tests. It would be better if it run all of them plus checkstyle and
> > > > findbugs.
> > >
> > > Many junit tests require a display. Nightly builds are run in a
> > > headless configuration, hence I had to disable many junit tests. At
> > > nightly builds there is no one to check checkstyle and findbugs errors
> > > and warnings; therefore there is no point in running them.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >