Maybe I need to rephrase this a bit. Your line of reasoning is absolutely correct from a process point of view (like a CI build). But rigorously applying this principle across the board denies developers the comfort of selectively running subsets of tests. Developer productivity should count for something as well.
Kristof Vanbecelaere wrote: > > I disagree. Have you ever written a selenium test? This is trial and > error. I have not touched any "real" code, only test code. So I know my > unit tests succeed. All I want to do is run the integration-test phase > without unit tests. > > > Stephen Connolly-2 wrote: >> >> 2008/11/27 Kristof Vanbecelaere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Actually, that is the aim. >> >> You run all the unit tests to make sure that the code is good enough to >> try >> and run the integration tests. >> >> If your unit tests fail, your code is broken and you know it, so fix your >> code. >> >> If your unit tests pass, now lets see if it integrates correctly, hence >> run >> the integration tests. >> >> If the integration tests pass, we can publish the project (i.e. install >> or >> deploy to maven repo) >> >> This is what the lifecycle is all about... a well defined sequence of >> phases, all the previous phases must complete successfully before the >> next >> phase starts. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/maven-surefire-plugin-configuration-for-unit-integration-tests-tp20724622p20730746.html Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
