OK, I think I have a formal +1 from Jody, support from Andrea (I have
taken this as +1, it that OK?), and a week has elapsed. Is the proposal
approved? Would you like me to commit the changes and update the
developer docs?
Kind regards,
Ben.
Jody Garnett wrote:
> Got it. Checking that the pro
Got it. Checking that the proposal says what you mean... you even found the
developers guide page that needs to change :-D+1
Jody
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
wrote:
> Jody Garnett wrote:
>
>> Hrm you are right; Justin wanted proposals for things that effect the
>> build.
Jody Garnett wrote:
> Hrm you are right; Justin wanted proposals for things that effect the
> build. I think he was mostly focused on maven; but broad changes to the
> entire test process would qualify. I think you are just asking the super
> class to support a new option which you are going to
Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> Jody Garnett wrote:
>> I think this is a case were we can come to a decision without a
>> formal proposal since this just effects us the devel community and
>> the change is not visible to user code. But that is my take on it -
>> we are still sorting out when a propo
Jody Garnett wrote:
> I think this is a case were we can come to a decision without a formal
> proposal since this just effects us the devel community and the change is not
> visible to user code. But that is my take on it - we are still sorting out
> when a proposal is useful and when it is a w
Read over the proposal; I think this is a case were we can come to a
decision without a formal proposal since this just effects us the devel
community and the change is not visible to user code. But that is my take on
it - we are still sorting out when a proposal is useful and when it is a
waste of
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto:
>> I propose that an optional key be added to OnlineTestCase to cause test
>> failure on failed connection:
>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/OnlineTestCase+support+for+failure+on+failed+connection
>
> Works for me. Just a minor note,
Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto:
> I propose that an optional key be added to OnlineTestCase to cause test
> failure on failed connection:
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/OnlineTestCase+support+for+failure+on+failed+connection
Works for me. Just a minor note, there is one other case in
You might have some online resources under your control, and may wish
for these tests to fail when they cannot connect, while ignoring
connection failures in others. As noted by Andrea in our discussion last
August, this decision must be left to those configuring the online test
fixtures for a
How would that be helpful? I could see throwing a java property to ask
the online tests to fail
Personally I log the first failed connection message.
Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> I propose that an optional key be added to OnlineTestCase to cause test
> failure on failed connection:
> http://d
I propose that an optional key be added to OnlineTestCase to cause test
failure on failed connection:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/OnlineTestCase+support+for+failure+on+failed+connection
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies
Software Engineer, CSIRO Exploration and Mining
Australian Resources Rese
11 matches
Mail list logo
