Hi Andrew, dependency management would be the next step. How fast it will come will depend from my side if I have a customer interested in this feature or if I implement it in my free time. I imagine that 80% of the dependency configuration could be handled very easily with some conventions (for instance using special names for some Ant properties).
Update: a former client for which I implemented a slightly modified version of this feature to run tests in parallel (particularly with a small dependency management) just notified me that they finally used it with even better results than expected: using 8 worker threads the tests execution time has been cut down by more than 75% (~1 1/2 hours compared to ~6 hours). Cheers, Marc. -- Blog: http://mguillem.wordpress.com Andrew Ryan wrote: > This sounds cool. I notice dependencies aren't handled yet, but I don't > need full-blown dependencies. In my case, and I suspect this is fairly > normal, I have: > 1) certain tests in my suite which have to be executed in a certain > order, and > 2) certain tests which don't care which order they are run in or when > > I could easily parallelize the second group of tests, but not the first > group. And in the first group, I have subgroups of use cases which could > be run in parallel. Any increase in testing speed would be appreciated, > especially the week before a release :) > > --andrew > _______________________________________________ > WebTest mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest > _______________________________________________ WebTest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
