Hi Glenn, Ok, I can leave them in, by making the changes described above creating ant targets would be much simpler.
Mehdi On 23 September 2011 09:16, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote: > i would suggest you simply create a new target that invokes tests in the > fashion you propose; however, i would not want to replace the current > targets with this new target, or at least not do so without considerable > usage having passed; > i personally like having different targets, particularly when creating new > tests or debugging regressions in tests, since that allows me to effectively > subset the tests from command line based on which targets i select; > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:57 PM, mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Guys, >> >> Since there's been overwhelming support for this, I'll throw another >> thought out there for people to consider. While looking at these >> tests, it seems logical to me to change the way FOP invokes the JUnit >> tests, so that rather than invoking test-suites, the build.xml, >> invokes ALL classes that match the regex "*TestCase.java". >> >> The benefit of this would be that if someone forgets to add a unit >> test to a test suite, the test is still invoked, but more importantly, >> it would greatly simplify the build.xml. This would also mean that the >> layout/area tree/IF test-suites will have to change to take advantage >> of the JUnit4 parametrised test system. But that's not difficult to >> do, and quite frankly I don't like that they depend on so many obscure >> system parameters, I appreciate that that's the only way to >> parametrise tests in JUnit3, but this gives us an opportunity to >> improve it. This also has the added benefit that people can run these >> tests in their IDE without having to inject system parameters. >> >> I welcome any thoughts on this, I have not have appreciated all the >> use cases. I also intend on leaving the test-suites that are already >> there, so that should people want to invoke these tests, they can. >> >> Mehdi >> >> On 14 September 2011 10:36, Peter Hancock <peter.hanc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Thanks Mehdi for considering this, thats a +1 from me. >> > >> > This will require some work. A quick search on the subject of 3 to 4 >> > migration yielded quite a few guides that pointed out some pitfalls. >> > A general recommendation, for instance, is not to mix JUnit 3 and 4 >> > conventions, e.g. est classes should not extend TestCase as this will >> > instruct the framework to adopt JUnit 3 behavior. >> > >> > Unfortunately I could not find a defacto migration guide on the JUnit >> > site, and I have no good reason to link to any other guide without >> > evaluating in detail. If another member of our community has made >> > the transition on another project and can offer advice, or perhaps can >> > I point us to useful resources, this would be most welcomed! >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Peter >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:16 AM, mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Guys, >> >> >> >> I want to propose an upgrade of our test system to JUnit 4, the >> >> benefits of upgrading can be found on plenty of blogs , but I just >> >> wanted to get a feel of what everyone thought? For those that aren't >> >> familiar with JUnit 4, it is backward compatible, so that may >> >> alleviate some migration worries. >> >> >> >>  >> >> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/fabianocruz/archive/2006/06/junit_4_you.html >> >> >> >> Mehdi >> >> >> > > >