And I've deleted patch set which contained deleted jars. On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Marko Vuksanovic <[email protected] > wrote:
> I've added a patch set 3 which contains patch for tools folder with only > junit4 jars added - junit3 jars still there. > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Marko Vuksanovic < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Here's the patch which replaces the jars (patch set 1) in the tools >>> >> >> Don't delete the old jars, just add the new ones. That way, regardless of >> which version of source you check out, the tools directory will have what it >> needs. >> >> >> >>> folder and another (patch set 2) which updates build.xml and classpath >>> files. >>> >> >> This one looks okay, but clearly can't be submitted without the first one. >> >> The junit dependency is so widespread it might make sense to define a >> macro for it in common.ant.xml. It won't save you anything this time, since >> you have to update all the cites to that macro, but it might be convenient >> for next time. >> >> >>> >>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/334803/show >>> >>> I'm not sure if I should have opened two different issues, with >>> different base URLs, for these two patches.... >>> >> >> Typically, the multiple patch sets are opened for revisions of one atomic >> change. So I'd've done this with two changes (tools and trunk), but you >> might also have done it with one at the googlecode.com/svn level), but >> two patch sets with different svn roots and order dependencies between them >> is odd. >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 16, 10:49 pm, Marko Vuksanovic <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Ok, I'll just save you some time... :) but will first check if >>> everything is >>> > ok once the dependencies are replaced... >>> > >>> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > I think that's correct, but we historically have been pretty lazy >>> about >>> > > updating our dependencies... >>> > >>> > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Marko Vuksanovic < >>> > > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> One more question - why aren't JUnit 4 libraries used? I think >>> junit4 >>> > >> supports junit3 test style? Am I right? >>> > >>> > >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Marko Vuksanovic < >>> > >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> I like challenges :):) >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:09 PM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Marko Vuksanovic < >>> > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>>>> I just noticed that there is HasAnnotations interface... I might >>> try >>> > >>>>> putting that to use... >>> > >>> > >>>>> On Apr 16, 9:38 pm, Marko Vuksanovic <[email protected]> >>> > >>>>> wrote: >>> > >>>>> > Well I've been looking at the existing code and I have seen >>> that >>> > >>>>> > JClassType implements getMethods(). Then I would be able to >>> check if >>> > >>>>> a >>> > >>>>> > method has Annotation applied - using isAnnotationPresent() >>> method. >>> > >>> > >>>>> > I am not sure how to check if a method has an annotation >>> applied and >>> > >>>>> > not to use the refelection package. The problem is that that >>> package >>> > >>>>> > cannot be used in translatable code. Obviously I'm missing >>> something >>> > >>>>> > here... >>> > >>> > >>>> You probably want to look at GWTRunnerGenerator, which generates >>> the >>> > >>>> implementation of GWTRunner to actually run it (and has access to >>> > >>>> TypeOracle), or JUnitShell, which actually drives running the >>> tests and can >>> > >>>> use reflection to look at the annotations (though be careful about >>> different >>> > >>>> classloaders). >>> > >>> > >>>> That said, I suspect supporting JUnit4 is likely to be a lot of >>> work. >>> > >>> > >>>> -- >>> > >>>> John A. Tamplin >>> > >>>> Software Engineer (GWT), Google >>> > >>> > >>>> -- >>> > >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> > >>> > >> -- >>> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> > >>> > > -- >>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> > >>> > --http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> >>> -- >>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> >> >> -- >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >> > > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
