Hi, Aaron,
I can see several ways to address your problem:
(1) Check task order in build.xml, so that the order looks like:
(a) checkstyle
(b) install build sensor
(c) compile
(d) junit
(2) Change build sensor, so that there is a property that it ignores
checkstyle error, or some other types of error.
(3) Change analysis to ignore checkstyle error on the server side.
What people think is the best option?
Cheers,
Cedric
Aaron Akihisa Kagawa wrote:
I suppose you are right, Ant doesn't fail. But, the thing is that
according to the Hackystat Build data there was a failure. So, if I run
a Hackystat analysis on build data, the analysis will show a failure.
In my development process, I would like to have a Hackystat Build
failure only for Compilation and JUnit and exclude Checkstyle. In fact,
I guess it would be best to leave out Checkstyle totally from the Ant
Build Sensor.
thanks, aaron
----- Original Message -----
From: Hongbing Kou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, October 7, 2005 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [HACKYSTAT-DEV-L] Ant Build Sensor ignore checkstyle errors
Hi, Aaron,
Please correct me if I get it wrong. I think both Checkstyle and
JUnit failure
will not fail the build. The build will continue and it will
report
checkstyle errors and
test failures at the end.
Thanks,
Hongbing
At 10:45 AM 10/7/2005, Aaron Akihisa Kagawa wrote:
Cedric,
Is there an easy way to ignore a type of error in the Ant Build
Sesnor?>For example, you seem to check three things Compilation,
JUnit, and
Checkstyle but I want to ignore Checkstyle errors. My reason for
that is
that we don't fail builds on checkstyle errors, but we do fail
builds on
the other two.
In addition, if we wanted to add checks to the build sensor, say an
automated code inspector we would have to hack the
BuildSensorAntListener class. In the future it would be cool if
it was a
little more configurable. It seems like the Ant Build Sensor
consists of
a collection of ant task "sensors". In fact, when I write the
checkstyle>sensor we would have sensors for Junit and Checkstyle,
which makes me
think that we don't need build entry for every Junit and/or
Checkstyle>Failure. Instead the Snapshot UnitTest, Checkstyle (we
need a better
more general name for Checkstyle), and Build data could be
connected by
timestamp or something like that.
thanks, aaron
