3:55 a.m.
Agreed, and I'm not opposed to that. It's just that some of these
changes break some well known conventions and do have an alternative
option of implementing the same. So just trying to make sure that we
understand the real usecase before doing the change.
-Jaikiran
On Monday 28 November 2011 03:12 PM, Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
Jaikiran, just have in mind that we want to keep the AS/EAP diff at
the source level minimum.
On 28/11/2011 11:35, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> On Monday 28 November 2011 02:52 PM, Ondřej Žižka wrote:
>> Jaikiran Pai píše v Po 28. 11. 2011 v 13:48 +0530:
>>> There's
>>> -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true if you want to ignore those test
>>> failures. I don't know how the AS7 project handles the
>>> -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore property due to our testsuite
>>> profiles/customizations. But we shouldn't be adding new meaning to
>>> already well known flags.
>> The problem with these is that they apply to whole build.
> That's not a _problem_ since that's what it's expected to do.
>>
>>
>>>> How about having two params for that, with -DskipTests for unit
tests,
>>>> and, say, -DskipTestsuite for skipping the testsuite module's
tests?
>>>>
>>> IMO, we shouldn't just be adding all these new flags which make it
>>> complicated to understand what set of flags to use and when.
>> I have to disappoint you but you'll see more and more flags being
>> added in the future.
>> Please realize that there are other groups using the testsuite e.g.
>> for EAP testing.
> I understand that it's not just the developers who are using these
> testsuite. My point is that most of these additional flags that we keep
> adding are only relevant for the EAP testing/QA - which really means
> that these shouldn't be added to the default build or in other words
> should not show any impact on how the other group (i.e. the developers)
> uses the current build. Since these flags apply to the EAP testing, why
> not have a specific script which deals with all these flags and that
> script can then be used for EAP testing? My point is not about adding
> these new flags but is more about having to expect the non-QA developers
> (for whom those are irrelevant) to understand and use these flags for
> the builds.
>
>> But I can keep you uninformed and keep the testsuite running without
>> changes of "API" if that helps.
> I guess, you meant informed. Yes, that would help - if adding the flags
> helps QA testing but doesn't have any impact on the "API" and helps
keep
> the testsuite running, then I have no objection to those changes/flags.
>
>>
>>> The actual
>>> question for this specific issue is what's the real usecase of skipping
>>> unit tests (which potentially can have failures) but still want to run
>>> the integration tests?
>> Often it happens that some unit tests fail and block one step AS build
>> & testsuite execution.
> So far I haven't seen any unit test fail in AS7 (and if some of them are
> failing then those need to be fixed). Yes, there are integration test
> failures which are intermittent. But those issues need to be fixed. Like
> I said in my earlier reply, building the entire project by using
> -DskipTests (to skip all tests) and then cd testsuite/integration; mvn
> clean install (to run the integration tests) is what you are looking for
> in such cases. Ofcourse it's a 2 step process but to me that's more
> logical (and can even be added to a script) than adding and integrating
> some new property.
>
>> And let me ask the other way around - what is the use case of
>> -DskipTests, skipping all tests?
> Yes.
>>
>>> To be clear - IMO, we should have the -DskipTests back without adding a
>>> new meaning to that param.
>> Okay, I realized I can set<skipTests> from a different property. So
>> it will be back in a while.
> Thanks!
>
> -Jaikiran
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev