>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:40:13 +0100, Charles Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I recommend you forget that the flag exists and make the tests >> faster. > That doesn't necessarily help. If all of his tests take 0.1 second > on average, but he has 1000 tests, it still takes 100 seconds to run > them all, which may still be unacceptably long to wait when running > frequently. Then they would still be too slow I guess. There are projects with many more than 1000 tests that run in a reasonable time ( http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/junit-report.html ). Everyone has a threshold wrt build times. Maven runs the tests on each build because that is a best practice in our industry. They should be fast and focused tests, otherwise maybe the build should not be dependant upon them ( the slow ones that is, in which case you could move them into a separate testing project ). In my experience, slow running tests usually have external dependencies ( files, database, network ) which slow them down. I try to have unit/programmer tests not depend on anything external. Those tests ( that depend on external systems ) are important, and should exist. But having the build depend on them may not be wise. This has been discussed on this list before, sorry if I came off too harsh, I was really trying to help. >> >>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:49:06 +0100, Kenny MacLeod >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> > Folks, I currently have a project where the unit tests take a > >> considerable amount of time to run (5 minutes or so), and as a > >> result, running them every time I do a build is proving >> impractical. > Initially, I just added the maven.test.skip flag to >> my > project.properties, but this isn't a good solution, mainly >> because > if I explicitly want to run the unit tests, I have to >> take the flag > out again. >> >> > What I want is for the unit tests not to be run when i do a >> build, > but I do want them to run if I explicitly say so. The >> interactions > between the Java and Test plugins don't seem to be >> flexible enough > to allow this. >> >> > My current solution is to move the unit tests out to a seperate > >> project, but that seems like an arse-backwards way of going about > >> it. Can anyone suggest a better approach? >> >> I think you may be onto something here. If they are so long, maybe >> they aren't unit tests and should be moved. -- ===================================================================== Jeffrey D. Brekke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wisconsin, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
