I like #1 as is, but would like it better with a minor modification. I think there should be 2 explicit named targets for emma stuff: one consisting of the short tests and the other consisting of long tests. The short tests should always run while the long tests should at least run during the continuous build. For now, both test targets can be included in default with the understanding that we can cut the long test from the default, if 'ant test' starts taking too long.
This would mean moving the second gwt.unit from test.hosted as a separate target that is always invoked and fixing the bad test.out value of default.hosted.emma.tests and also specifically excluding EmmaClassLoadingTest.class from the long tests. Amit On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > Er. Can I take back my approval? It looks like test.hosted already and > also runs the Emma tests, and the test.hosted.emma target has a bad test.out > value. > We can, I think, do any one of: > > 1. have test.hosted.emma as an explicit named target, fix its test.out, > cut the second gwt.junit from test.hosted, and keep your patch, or > 2. have test.hosted embody emma tests, cutting your patch and the > test.hosted.emma target, or > 3. have test.hosted embody emma tests, but allow them to be run > separately, cutting your patch and fixing test.hosted.emma's test.out. > > I think I prefer #1 and dislike #3. Any dissenting opinion, while I make > the patch for that? > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Amit Manjhi <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Makes sense. Thanks. Commited as r5275 >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> But now we're running them twice. >>> I'll give you the LGTM as testing is good, but I'm a bit worried for the >>> time penalty. But if it's a problem, we can fall back to the other approach >>> when it's clear it's a problem. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Amit Manjhi <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> It just requires emma.jar which is pulled in from the tools dir. The >>>> time is basically the same as running hosted mode user tests. >>>> >>>> Amit >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Freeland Abbott >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, that will run emma tests for everyone everywhere who does "ant >>>>> test"... >>>>> Does it require anything in particular to work, which people might not >>>>> have installed? And is the time significant? >>>>> >>>>> We can easily enough tweak the continuous builder configuration to >>>>> explicitly run the emma tests, if either of those questions gets a bad >>>>> answer. If they're both good, then maybe it's reasonable for all users to >>>>> run all tests (with the caveat that non-local web tests also need >>>>> properties >>>>> set, or they become no-ops...) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Amit Manjhi <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Freeland, >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch makes the emma tests run as part of our continuous build. >>>>>> The tests basically run all tests in user, except where sun's and >>>>>> openjdk's >>>>>> javac are broken, with emma.jar on the classpath. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Amit >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
