Re: [Exist-development] 4 failing tests on teamcity

[James F. <jam...@ex...>]

On 29 July 2010 22:27, Dannes Wessels <da...@ex...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Fuller
> <jam...@ex...> wrote:
>> note we need to discuss about the lack of java properties being set
>> for unit tests ... its somewhat limiting and the cause of failing
>> tests at the moment on teamcity (though build is fine now).
>>
>> how do people feel if exist.home java property was available via unit
>> tests ... is this too 'unclean' ? I think it maybe, though we probably
>> also want to add some lowlevel unit tests for checking java properties
>> as well ;)
>
> That does quite reasonable. Well, there is one thing to add here: We
> should think of a way where *all* extensions and indexes are built...
> and tested. E.g. the spatial index is not tested on the build server
> while there is a test suite available.

agreed

> So basically we need to have a conf.xml and a
> extensions/local.build.properties in which all these items are
> enabled. Only this way we can detect issues in an early phase (we have
> missed issues in spatial before, waste of our time that was)

it seems like this would also help test configuration parts of the codebase

> anyway...all committers should run the junit suite first before
> committing changes....... with all extensions enabled. I guess just a
> few of us have all these things enabled. New rule for the Manifesto?

I agree and make my apologies not having done so ... in this case I
wanted to illustrate my problem, I will refactor code so that the 4
outstanding tests work today.

ta, J