On 5/28/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
I really disagree with this: it is already hard to make a bug reproducable. Often the person reproducing the bug does not know how to solve it. The person having *time* to solve it, usually doesn't have time to build a test case for it. Having failing test cases on trunk is obviously not good, but it is better than not having testcases, or testcases that don't get run (which is what you are proposing). If you commit a failing testcase, it is necessary to make sure dev@ is notified, so people know it is not their fault and that it is intentional/necessary. It is also necessary to fix the thing pronto, but if it were that easy, the fix would've been committed together with the test case, wouldn't it? Trunk is for development: at any given time the test can fail. They just need to get fixed quickly. Note that this is not an excuse for not running and fixing the unit tests before a commit. Martijn -- Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
