Re: AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Steve Cohen wrote: However, it does seem to me that this test case is rather incomplete, and could be beefed up in several ways to test these and other recent features of commons-net which are not being tested here. Feel free to expand this test. I created this test to check that the pattern selection features of the ftp task work, when I refactored it. Makes sense, I suppose. You would presume that commons-net has its own tests (indeed it does) and therefore only test the interaction with Ant. I guess what I am asking is what the scope of these tests is. Who runs them, when, and how? (Do they change the password as I had to?). I believe almost no one runs these tests, except committers who are changing the ftp task. To make this test work in gump, there would be the need to install on the gump machine a standard ftp server used to run the tests. In commons-net we have tests that ARE part of gump and can be run anywhere and then we have tests that are NOT part of gump (we call them functional tests) since they depend on various ftp servers over which we have no control. These tests are only run manually, although they should pass, assuming the server is up, from anywhere, without modification or -D definition. (they use anonymous FTP). Do you think it would make sense to add such tests here? Or should I just be testing that the new attributes are accepted by Ant properly? I am eager to test the time zone feature in Ant, which virtually requires an external ftp server and could be very useful in Ant. The other new features, concerning languages other than English, etc., are, in my experience harder to test because there are so few servers that work that way anymore. Almost all the publicly accessible ftp servers have converted to English month names. I know because I looked all over the place and could find not a single one that didn't! I presume that the non-English server complaints we occasionally hear about concern various private intra-company servers that use older ftp servers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Apparently older ftp servers actually called ls and the newer ones don't. This will become even more moot as all-numeric timestamps become more prevalent in unix ftp servers - I recently learned that Debian is now shipping this way and hope this a wave of the future. I've also committed install.html to indicate that from here forward, commons.net = 1.4.0 is required. If commons.net 1.4.0 is required, is it not a big constraing for the 1.6.4 release ? Indeed. I was proceeding on Stefan's instructions to put it into the HEAD and have a vote later about adding them to 1.6.4. If the Ant team does not feel confident about requiring 1.4.0 so soon this vote will fail. I am working on revised manual page for the ftp task which has optional new attributes but I want to tweak that a bit more. +1 Antoine Steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
Any chance one of you guys could also incorporate my simple patch to the FTP task that adds the initialcommand attribute? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34853 Thanks, John This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally. Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/05/2005 08:38:39 PM: Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Steve Cohen wrote: However, it does seem to me that this test case is rather incomplete, and could be beefed up in several ways to test these and other recent features of commons-net which are not being tested here. Feel free to expand this test. I created this test to check that the pattern selection features of the ftp task work, when I refactored it. Makes sense, I suppose. You would presume that commons-net has its own tests (indeed it does) and therefore only test the interaction with Ant. I guess what I am asking is what the scope of these tests is. Who runs them, when, and how? (Do they change the password as I had to?). I believe almost no one runs these tests, except committers who are changing the ftp task. To make this test work in gump, there would be the need to install on the gump machine a standard ftp server used to run the tests. In commons-net we have tests that ARE part of gump and can be run anywhere and then we have tests that are NOT part of gump (we call them functional tests) since they depend on various ftp servers over which we have no control. These tests are only run manually, although they should pass, assuming the server is up, from anywhere, without modification or -D definition. (they use anonymous FTP). Do you think it would make sense to add such tests here? Or should I just be testing that the new attributes are accepted by Ant properly? I am eager to test the time zone feature in Ant, which virtually requires an external ftp server and could be very useful in Ant. The other new features, concerning languages other than English, etc., are, in my experience harder to test because there are so few servers that work that way anymore. Almost all the publicly accessible ftp servers have converted to English month names. I know because I looked all over the place and could find not a single one that didn't! I presume that the non-English server complaints we occasionally hear about concern various private intra-company servers that use older ftp servers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Apparently older ftp servers actually called ls and the newer ones don't. This will become even more moot as all-numeric timestamps become more prevalent in unix ftp servers - I recently learned that Debian is now shipping this way and hope this a wave of the future. I've also committed install.html to indicate that from here forward, commons.net = 1.4.0 is required. If commons.net 1.4.0 is required, is it not a big constraing for the 1.6.4 release ? Indeed. I was proceeding on Stefan's instructions to put it into the HEAD and have a vote later about adding them to 1.6.4. If the Ant team does not feel confident about requiring 1.4.0 so soon this vote will fail. I am working on revised manual page for the ftp task which has optional new attributes but I want to tweak that a bit more. +1 Antoine Steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any chance one of you guys could also incorporate my simple patch to the FTP task that adds the initialcommand attribute? http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34853 Thanks, John This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally. Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/05/2005 08:38:39 PM: Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Steve Cohen wrote: However, it does seem to me that this test case is rather incomplete, and could be beefed up in several ways to test these and other recent features of commons-net which are not being tested here. Feel free to expand this test. I created this test to check that the pattern selection features of the ftp task work, when I refactored it. Makes sense, I suppose. You would presume that commons-net has its own tests (indeed it does) and therefore only test the interaction with Ant. I guess what I am asking is what the scope of these tests is. Who runs them, when, and how? (Do they change the password as I had to?). I believe almost no one runs these tests, except committers who are changing the ftp task. To make this test work in gump, there would be the need to install on the gump machine a standard ftp server used to run the tests. In commons-net we have tests that ARE part of gump and can be run anywhere and then we have tests that are NOT part of gump (we call them functional tests) since they depend on various ftp servers over which we have no control. These tests are only run manually, although they should pass, assuming the server is up, from anywhere, without modification or -D definition. (they use anonymous FTP). Do you think it would make sense to add such tests here? Or should I just be testing that the new attributes are accepted by Ant properly? I am eager to test the time zone feature in Ant, which virtually requires an external ftp server and could be very useful in Ant. The other new features, concerning languages other than English, etc., are, in my experience harder to test because there are so few servers that work that way anymore. Almost all the publicly accessible ftp servers have converted to English month names. I know because I looked all over the place and could find not a single one that didn't! I presume that the non-English server complaints we occasionally hear about concern various private intra-company servers that use older ftp servers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Apparently older ftp servers actually called ls and the newer ones don't. This will become even more moot as all-numeric timestamps become more prevalent in unix ftp servers - I recently learned that Debian is now shipping this way and hope this a wave of the future. I've also committed install.html to indicate that from here forward, commons.net = 1.4.0 is required. If commons.net 1.4.0 is required, is it not a big constraing for the 1.6.4 release ? Indeed. I was proceeding on Stefan's instructions to put it into the HEAD and have a vote later about adding them to 1.6.4. If the Ant team does not feel confident about requiring 1.4.0 so soon this vote will fail. I am working on revised manual page for the ftp task which has optional new attributes but I want to tweak that a bit more. +1 Antoine Steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not in the 1.6.4 timeframe, but I will be happy to take a look, soon. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
Steve Cohen wrote: Steve Cohen wrote: However, it does seem to me that this test case is rather incomplete, and could be beefed up in several ways to test these and other recent features of commons-net which are not being tested here. Makes sense, I suppose. You would presume that commons-net has its own tests (indeed it does) and therefore only test the interaction with Ant. Really, I wrote a few tests with a very limited purpose to check that pattern matching selection of files was still working after having changed the scanning of remote directories to go directly to the include patterns specified by the build file, instead of scanning the whole remote directory. I did not have the know-how and the ideas how to write better tests. In commons-net we have tests that ARE part of gump and can be run anywhere and then we have tests that are NOT part of gump (we call them functional tests) since they depend on various ftp servers over which we have no control. These tests are only run manually, although they should pass, assuming the server is up, from anywhere, without modification or -D definition. (they use anonymous FTP). Do you think it would make sense to add such tests here? Yes, it makes sense to add such tests there. It allows to check that the whole software stack (ant + commons-net) is working. Or should I just be testing that the new attributes are accepted by Ant properly? I do not know whether it is possible to test that the new attributes are accepted by ant properly without also running tests against concrete ftp server instances. I th I am eager to test the time zone feature in Ant, which virtually requires an external ftp server and could be very useful in Ant. The other new features, concerning languages other than English, etc., are, in my experience harder to test because there are so few servers that work that way anymore. Almost all the publicly accessible ftp servers have converted to English month names. I know because I looked all over the place and could find not a single one that didn't! I presume that the non-English server complaints we occasionally hear about concern various private intra-company servers that use older ftp servers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Apparently older ftp servers actually called ls and the newer ones don't. This will become even more moot as all-numeric timestamps become more prevalent in unix ftp servers - I recently learned that Debian is now shipping this way and hope this a wave of the future. I've also committed install.html to indicate that from here forward, commons.net = 1.4.0 is required. If commons.net 1.4.0 is required, is it not a big constraing for the 1.6.4 release ? Indeed. I was proceeding on Stefan's instructions to put it into the HEAD and have a vote later about adding them to 1.6.4. If the Ant team does not feel confident about requiring 1.4.0 so soon this vote will fail. 1.6.4 compared to 1.6.3 should just be a bug fix release, so it does not sound to me in scope to require suddenly a new version of commons-net. Cheers, Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
But everybody will have a different opinion what makes up this core. copy? You bet. chmod? For those RPM builders probably yes. war? _I_ don't think so. Why chmod - works only on *nix ;-) Jan
Re: AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neeme Praks wrote: Ok, commons-net 1.4.0 has been released now. How can we proceed? Since there is apparently an Ant 1.6.4 version coming out on May 19th and since Neeme Praks has already submitted a patch to accomodate it, why not try to get this into that release? As the author of the commons-net code that Mr. Praks is relying on, and an Ant committer, I would be happy to take a look at his code and sponsor it for the 1.6.4 release. I realize that there may be other deadlines here. What do other Ant committers think? Steve Cohen If the tests pass - why not? :-) Jan I realize that the discussion has moved well beyond this point, but I wanted to discuss the tests and what is meant by that. I think you mean, in this case, /src/testcases/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/optional/net/FTPTest.java, right? I have applied the latest revised patch from Neeme Praks with a few modifications. We had a couple of iterations as I explained to him the way I thought the task should work, and he has coded it to those specifications, including only support for the new commons-net features and not including the retry and speedup improvements from his original patch which need more study. The tests mentiuned above all passed, once I changed /src/etc/testcases/taskdefs/optional/net/ftp.xml so that the ftp.password property was redefined as my password on my system. The original had a password of sunshine. Without that change all the tests failed. Is that the recommended practice for this test? Or is the test assuming some particular ftp server configuration that most servers have and my system does not? (I do not normally turn an ftp server on on my system and just accepted the default). Assuming that all the above is correct, I am satisfied that the code breaks nothing and am therefore committing it. However, it does seem to me that this test case is rather incomplete, and could be beefed up in several ways to test these and other recent features of commons-net which are not being tested here. I guess what I am asking is what the scope of these tests is. Who runs them, when, and how? (Do they change the password as I had to?). I've also committed install.html to indicate that from here forward, commons.net = 1.4.0 is required. I am working on revised manual page for the ftp task which has optional new attributes but I want to tweak that a bit more. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
Steve Cohen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neeme Praks wrote: Ok, commons-net 1.4.0 has been released now. How can we proceed? Since there is apparently an Ant 1.6.4 version coming out on May 19th and since Neeme Praks has already submitted a patch to accomodate it, why not try to get this into that release? As the author of the commons-net code that Mr. Praks is relying on, and an Ant committer, I would be happy to take a look at his code and sponsor it for the 1.6.4 release. I realize that there may be other deadlines here. What do other Ant committers think? Steve Cohen If the tests pass - why not? :-) Jan I realize that the discussion has moved well beyond this point, but I wanted to discuss the tests and what is meant by that. I think you mean, in this case, /src/testcases/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/optional/net/FTPTest.java, right? I have applied the latest revised patch from Neeme Praks with a few modifications. We had a couple of iterations as I explained to him the way I thought the task should work, and he has coded it to those specifications, including only support for the new commons-net features and not including the retry and speedup improvements from his original patch which need more study. The tests mentiuned above all passed, once I changed /src/etc/testcases/taskdefs/optional/net/ftp.xml so that the ftp.password property was redefined as my password on my system. The original had a password of sunshine. Without that change all the tests failed. Of course this is OK. I wrote this test, and I entered a phony password in the ftp.xml file. The idea is that the tester can run the test with a -Dftp.password=mypassword Is that the recommended practice for this test? Or is the test assuming some particular ftp server configuration that most servers have and my system does not? (I do not normally turn an ftp server on on my system and just accepted the default). Assuming that all the above is correct, I am satisfied that the code breaks nothing and am therefore committing it. However, it does seem to me that this test case is rather incomplete, and could be beefed up in several ways to test these and other recent features of commons-net which are not being tested here. Feel free to expand this test. I created this test to check that the pattern selection features of the ftp task work, when I refactored it. I guess what I am asking is what the scope of these tests is. Who runs them, when, and how? (Do they change the password as I had to?). I believe almost no one runs these tests, except committers who are changing the ftp task. To make this test work in gump, there would be the need to install on the gump machine a standard ftp server used to run the tests. I've also committed install.html to indicate that from here forward, commons.net = 1.4.0 is required. If commons.net 1.4.0 is required, is it not a big constraing for the 1.6.4 release ? I am working on revised manual page for the ftp task which has optional new attributes but I want to tweak that a bit more. +1 Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: [patch] FTP.java - adding support for new features in com mons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
Neeme Praks wrote: Ok, commons-net 1.4.0 has been released now. How can we proceed? Since there is apparently an Ant 1.6.4 version coming out on May 19th and since Neeme Praks has already submitted a patch to accomodate it, why not try to get this into that release? As the author of the commons-net code that Mr. Praks is relying on, and an Ant committer, I would be happy to take a look at his code and sponsor it for the 1.6.4 release. I realize that there may be other deadlines here. What do other Ant committers think? Steve Cohen If the tests pass - why not? :-) Jan
