On 2018-06-24, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 14:38, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> So if we went to a JUnit 4 only model in antlib-commons with what you
>> describe this would require the Antlib that updated to a new
>> antlibs-commons version to change all existing JUnit tests
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 14:38, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> So if we went to a JUnit 4 only model in antlib-commons with what you
> describe this would require the Antlib that updated to a new
> antlibs-commons version to change all existing JUnit tests?
>
My point was that should some antlib start us
On 2018-06-24, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 12:43, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2018-06-24, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>>> Actually, the targets are written in a way that checks explicitly for
>>> JUnit 3. Should they be rewritten to check for JUnit 4, the baseline
>>>
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 12:43, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2018-06-24, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> > Actually, the targets are written in a way that checks explicitly for
> > JUnit 3. Should they be rewritten to check for JUnit 4, the baseline
> > has to be moved to all the way Ant 1.9.5 becaus
On 2018-06-24, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 09:45, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2018-06-22, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>>> Well, setup-for-junit-tests states that JUnit is not available and
>>> quits.
>> So it lacks a dependency on resolve.
>>> I'd like to understand
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 09:45, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2018-06-22, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>
> > Well, setup-for-junit-tests states that JUnit is not available and
> > quits.
>
> So it lacks a dependency on resolve.
>
> > I'd like to understand why setup targets are there at all.
>
> They
On 2018-06-22, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 07:22, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2018-06-21, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>>> P.S. I'm struggling to understand why "ant test" of antlibs bails
>>> because "compile-tests" goes "setup-for-junit-tests, antlib, resolve"
>>> rat
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 07:22, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2018-06-21, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> > P.S. I'm struggling to understand why "ant test" of antlibs bails
> > because "compile-tests" goes "setup-for-junit-tests, antlib, resolve"
> > rather than doing "resolve" first and using the ret
On 2018-06-21, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> I decide to look at antlib builds,
Great.
> and I wonder why common/build.properties contain
> javac.-source=1.2
> javac.-target=1.2
Because this has been the baseline when we created the antlibs and
nobody has bothered to update them.
> Shouldn't
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 at 11:17, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2018-06-21, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>
> > POM template has inconsistent Ant versions, 1.7.1 in compile scope and
> > 1.8.1 in provided scope.
>
> True.
>
> This happened in c3f8655 which updated the dependencies to 1.8.1 because
> one
I think moving to Ant 1.8.x would be a better option, given the
relatively low chances of it causing any issues.
-Jaikiran
On 21/06/18 2:47 PM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2018-06-21, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
POM template has inconsistent Ant versions, 1.7.1 in compile scope and
1.8.1 in p
On 2018-06-21, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> POM template has inconsistent Ant versions, 1.7.1 in compile scope and
> 1.8.1 in provided scope.
True.
This happened in c3f8655 which updated the dependencies to 1.8.1 because
one of the unit tests used a method of ant-testutil that hasn't been
pres
12 matches
Mail list logo
