Re: ScmResult conventions

[Emmanuel Venisse]

Torbjørn Smørgrav a écrit :
if command is in success, provider message will be always null.


By definition of the API?

Ok, i checked some sources, it's possible to define the provider message and the command output when 
result is in success. So we can remove the assertNull on provider message after a check of all 
ScmResult classes.



What do you want exactly? Is it a provider message or the command output?


Both. On success, the provider could have given some warnings or
configuration details that
we want to propagate to the client. Its not used now but since its a public
API we are making we should
either make it impossible to construct ScmResults with a message and success
or we should
simply allow it.


I'd prefer you put them back.

not need to put them back.



Emmanuel


Torbjørn Smørgrav a écrit :

I see that some unit tests are asserting that the provider message in a
ScmResult
is null if the result is successfull. Is there any reason for that?
For me I would like to have the ability to get feedback from the provider
even on success.

Now if its a reason, is the success field in the ScmResult class

redundant?

The patch I attatched to issue SCM-160 removed some of those asserts...

I'll

put them back if
they are required.

Regards
Torbjørn

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Venisse (JIRA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13. februar 2006 21:37
To: scm-dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (SCM-160) Refactored tck tests, added
changelog tck test and added changelog, diff test for the bazaar
provider


   [ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-160?page=comments#action_58542 ]

Emmanuel Venisse commented on SCM-160:
--------------------------------------

ScmTckTestCase is missing



Refactored tck tests, added changelog tck test and added changelog, diff

test for the bazaar provider


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------


       Key: SCM-160
       URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-160
   Project: Maven SCM
      Type: Improvement


Components: maven-scm-provider-bazaar
  Versions: 1.0-beta-3
Environment: Tested on WinXp and Linux for cvs, svn and bazaar
  Reporter: Torbjørn EIkli Smørgrav
Attachments: MNG-160-maven-scm-provider-bazaar.patch,

MNG-160-maven-scm-test.patch


Short summary: Refactored code into a new baseclass: ScmTckTestCase. Added

tests to Bazaar.


Working with my bazaar tests I found out that the tck test module had some

redundant code.


So I took the liberty to refactor the tck package a bit before I added the

final tests to the bazaar provider.


I tested the refactored test module with cvs, svn and bazaar on WinXp and

Linux.


(Bazaar had trouble with linux and bazaar 0.6, but that turned out to be a

Bazaar bug that was fixed in post 0.6 versions of Bazaar)


The refactoring consist mainly of centralizing duplicated blocks of code

into a new test base class: ScmTckTestCase. And


using a common setUp() method for all tck tests.
If you find this class ok - then you will most likly find the rest ok.


--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
  http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
  http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira