It looks fine, but incomplete. I'd forgotten about this better base
class, and also referenced TestCase in the TestNG provider. If you can
update that as well, then it should be fine.
I've given you commit rights on surefire.
Cheers,
Brett
Mike Perham wrote:
I have fixed
: surefire patch needs review
It looks fine, but incomplete. I'd forgotten about this better base
class, and also referenced TestCase in the TestNG provider. If you can
update that as well, then it should be fine.
I've given you commit rights on surefire.
Cheers,
Brett
Mike Perham wrote:
I have fixed
( clazz ) )
{
...
}
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:32 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: surefire patch needs review
It looks fine, but incomplete. I'd forgotten about this better base
class, and also referenced
Developers List
Subject: Re: surefire patch needs review
It looks fine, but incomplete. I'd forgotten about this better base
class, and also referenced TestCase in the TestNG provider. If you can
update that as well, then it should be fine.
I've given you commit rights on surefire.
Cheers,
Brett
-
From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: surefire patch needs review
To be fair, there was definitely more than a ~little~ bit of pressure
being put on Brett at the time...This might have been something I had in
one
, 2006 1:21 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: surefire patch needs review
To be fair, there was definitely more than a ~little~ bit of pressure
being put on Brett at the time...This might have been something I had in
one of the original patches submitted as well
I don't think extending
Mike Perham wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to denigrate anyone, esp Brett. I think we've
all written dodgy code in our day. I just got a chuckle out of the
particular word choice.
Certainly no offence taken. I fully admit to its dodginess (it was an
improvement over not working at all,
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
P.S. Not using TestNGClassFinder.isTestNGClass is the exact reason
(probably?..) why someone's base class with no test methods and only
@Configuration methods might not be found.
Unlikely, as it is going to assume it's a TestNG class as long as it
doesn't extend TestCase,
Hmmm...I'm not remembering so well these days either. (I'm also a bit
disconnected from what the current surefire code looks like)
When I double checked the isTestNGClass logic though it confirmed that the
basic function is for it to look for ~any~ annotations on the class in
question. (whether
Mike Perham wrote:
Brett, I'm still getting a 403 Forbidden when I try to check in. Is
there a cron job I need to wait for?
There shouldn't be a delay. Have you got it checked out as https?
- Brett
-
To unsubscribe,
Well, there's a delay cause now it works. :-) Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:28 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: surefire patch needs review
Mike Perham wrote:
Brett, I'm still getting a 403 Forbidden
11 matches
Mail list logo
