LGTM.

Yes, the short/long test breakdown should be EmmaClassLoadingTest and
others. It is okay if we do this short/long partitioning later, when we do
it across all tests.

Amit

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote:

> Amit, can you review the attached patch for solution #1 as originally
> outlined.
> Do we have a short/long test breakdown for Emma (i.e. is what's there
> "long," and EmmaClassLoading test only short)?  And do we actually want to
> go with short/long emma, only, or more generally have a short/long breakdown
> of tests for all categories (and, specifically, a "smoketest" entry to do
> short emma, hosted, and local-web tests)?
>
> I'm reluctant to do the extended version without having thought a bit more
> about the expected usage...
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Amit Manjhi <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to