On 23/02/11 14:42, Glenn Adams wrote:
> 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).

While I agree with the above, I’m with Simon on this. Tests should be
done within a continuous integration tool; Nightly builds serve
a different purpose.

I increasingly feel the need to set up continuous integration for the
FOP project. The ASF provides several CI environments (Hudson, among
others), at some point in the future I’m going to try them out and set
up something. Hopefully sooner rather than later.


> G.
> 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
>> would
>>> be useful to fail the nightly build if they do not pass. I will
>> investigate
>>> 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.
>> Simon
>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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
>> junit
>>>>> 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

Reply via email to