confirmed... thanks!

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:13 AM, mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
>
> I fixed this issue in r1243549, this was a mistake made during the
> migration to Junit4 (i.e. my fault). The reason "junit-all" doesn't
> invoke these tests is because it runs a regex ("**/*TestCase.java"),
> which (rather ironically in this case) catches more of the tests than
> the TestSuites did. The problem is that when tests are added, people
> have forgotten to add tests to the appropriate TestSuite, an easy
> mistake, and not easy to spot. See the links below:
>
> See (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136) and
> (
> http://markmail.org/message/b5rtyyvxgbud32fh?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Exmlgraphics%2Efop-dev+junit4#query:list%3Aorg.apache.xmlgraphics.fop-dev%20junit4+page:1+mid:mugutpvibrurhz4t+state:results
> )
>
> On 11 February 2012 19:42, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> > i noticed today that junit-basic and junit-fotree targets both fail in
> > trunk; i'm not sure when this regression occurred, but it would be nice
> if
> > all junit targets pass in trunk; it also makes me wonder if junit-all is
> > exercising all the tests from these two targets;
> >
> > junit-basic
> >
> > ...
> > Testcase: testJpegImageConfig took 0.059 sec
> > Testcase: initializationError took 0.002 sec
> >         Caused an ERROR
> > No runnable methods
> > java.lang.Exception: No runnable methods
> >         at
> java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513)
> >         at
> java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513)
> >
> > Testcase: testJPEGImageLevel3 took 0.111 sec
> > ...
> >
> > junit-fotree
> >
> > ...
> > Testcase: initializationError took 0.032 sec
> >         Caused an ERROR
> > No runnable methods
> > java.lang.Exception: No runnable methods
> >         at
> java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513)
> >         at
> java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513)
> >
> > Testcase: testGetNextSimplePageMasterException took 0.42 sec
> > ...
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to