Yes, some code would need to be split out of the existing classes - which might mean some recoding to get round access to private methods.
There are are also a few stand-alone test classes that could just be moved to the test source directory tree. S. On 21/07/05, Michael Stover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eliminating the unit tests wouldn't be so easy - the one's under the > test/ directory are easy, but there's still a lot done as static inner > classes that, IMO, should be moved. > > -Mike > > On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 12:19 +0100, sebb wrote: > > I think it would be better to use the Sampler name as the sample > > label, and save the junit class + method as the sampler data. > > > > That way, one can aggregate multiple samples with different class/method > > names. > > > > == > > > > Also, I'm not sure that many existing JMeter JUnit tests would make > > sense to test, so maybe jmeter classes should be excluded from the > > list? > > > > Perhaps better would be to move all the JMeter tests to a separate > > source tree and/or separate jar file. This could then be excluded from > > the normal binary distribution, as the tests are only really needed by > > developers. > > > > S. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
