but if you do that (give it that name) the build works right?
so then the method isn't executed and its in the deep black hole where
nobody is looking at it again..
failures can happen and if they don't show in the unit test i run (or bamboo
runs)
then i will not notice them and never do anything about it.
about the current one. i think i will comment it out let one build pass and
then enable the failure test
again so that we do have a build for people that are testing against the
snapshots
johan
On 5/28/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Martijn Dashorst:
> In Wicket development (on the core project), the unit tests
> sometimes just don't run for a couple of days because they are
> used as a method of communication: someone knows how to
> reproduce a bug but doesn't know how to fix it. The unit test
> exposing the bug is then committed, so that someone else can
> look at it in due time.
Mmm actually I don't really agree, making the build fail should
not be intentional. We could have some convention like for
example naming the failing unit test methods after bugTestXXX()
instead of testXXX() to make it obvious that the test does not run
and that there is a bug.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
