RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-04-20 Thread Jan . Materne
http://lsd.student.utwente.nl/gump/ant/test-ant/gump_work/build_ant_test-ant .html last third of the page: Testcase: testJunit(org.apache.tools.ant.types.AssertionsTest): Caused an ERROR Test AssertionTest failed /data3/gump/ant/src/etc/testcases/types/assertions.xml:158: Test AssertionTest

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-03-03 Thread Stefan Bodewig
Hi, The failure occurs in Gumpy because Gumpy sets the build.clonevm system property for all builds (instead of those that ask for it). There is not much we can do from the Ant side. We could try to detect the property and adapt to it - or explicitly override it in the test itself. I'm leaning

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-03-03 Thread Antoine Lévy-Lambert
Stefan Bodewig wrote: Hi, The failure occurs in Gumpy because Gumpy sets the build.clonevm system property for all builds (instead of those that ask for it). There is not much we can do from the Ant side. We could try to detect the property and adapt to it - or explicitly override it in the test

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-27 Thread Jan . Materne
http://lsd.student.utwente.nl/gump/ant/gump_work/build_ant_test-ant.html Testcase: testGetCommandline(org.apache.tools.ant.types.CommandlineJavaTest): FAILED no classpath expected:4 but was:58 junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: no classpath expected:4 but was:58 at

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Jan . Materne
http://lsd.student.utwente.nl/gump/ant/work/build_ant_test-ant.html Testsuite: org.apache.tools.ant.ProjectTest Tests run: 7, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0.301 sec Testcase: testDuplicateTargets(org.apache.tools.ant.ProjectTest): FAILED Should throw BuildException because: Duplicate

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Jan Materne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should get a consensus on how to handle multiple definitions of a target inside a buildfile. 1. multiple targets defined in ONE buildfile is an error, while definitions via import is correct -- modify the test (more tests)

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Antoine Lévy-Lambert
Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Jan Materne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should get a consensus on how to handle multiple definitions of a target inside a buildfile. 1. multiple targets defined in ONE buildfile is an error, while definitions via import is correct -- modify the test

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Peter Reilly
Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Jan Materne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should get a consensus on how to handle multiple definitions of a target inside a buildfile. 1. multiple targets defined in ONE buildfile is an error, while definitions via import is

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Steve Loughran
Peter Reilly wrote: Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Jan Materne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should get a consensus on how to handle multiple definitions of a target inside a buildfile. 1. multiple targets defined in ONE buildfile is an error, while

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Jan . Materne
I am +1 for option 1, though I do note Gus Heck's point about the merits of an override option, though of course that gets controversial in the details: C++ off by default; virtual enables, virtual functions not valid in ctor Java: on by default; final disables, virtual methods

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Jose Alberto Fernandez
+1 for (1). -Original Message- From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 February 2004 09:34 To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ant/test-ant failed Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Jan Materne

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Matt Benson
--- Jose Alberto Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for (1). Another +1 for (1). -Matt On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Jan Materne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. multiple targets defined in ONE buildfile is an error, while definitions via import is correct -- modify the test (more

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-20 Thread Jan . Materne
Ok, 7 votes +1 (4 from PMC). I´ve added another testcase (passing), because there are two things to test 1. fail, if there are two target definitions inside ONE file 2. pass, if there are two target definitions via IMPORTED file see the cvs-message Jan -Original Message- From: Matt

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-10 Thread Jan . Materne
http://lsd.student.utwente.nl/gump/ant/work/build_ant_test-ant.html [junit] Testsuite: org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.JarTest [junit] Tests run: 23, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 40.177 sec [junit] Testcase: testRecreateWithUpdateNewerFile(org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.JarTest): FAILED

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-09 Thread Jan . Materne
Haven´t found any error. http://lsd.student.utwente.nl/gump/ant/work/build_ant_test-ant.html Start Time: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:58:45 (CET) End Time: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:05:27 (CET) BUILD SUCCESSFUL Total time: 6 minutes 37 seconds Maybe mail is from an older run ... Jan -Original

Re: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-09 Thread Antoine Lévy-Lambert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven´t found any error. http://lsd.student.utwente.nl/gump/ant/work/build_ant_test-ant.html Start Time: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:58:45 (CET) End Time: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:05:27 (CET) BUILD SUCCESSFUL Total time: 6 minutes 37 seconds Maybe mail is from an older run ... Jan

RE: [GUMP@lsd]: ant/test-ant failed

2004-02-09 Thread Jan . Materne
Fine, no open (reported) gump failure :-) Jan -Original Message- From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:54 AM To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ant/test-ant failed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Haven´t found