Re: [Hibernate] questions regarding development setup

[Max A. <max...@jb...>]

Yes, but no such thing exist AFAIK. That is why we introduced this =
failureExpected notion.

/max

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott M Stark
Sent: Sat 10-06-2006 17:32
To: Max Andersen; Szczepan Faber
Cc: hib...@li...
Subject: RE: [Hibernate] questions regarding development setup
=20
Its more a limitation of the testing environment than project structure. =
One should be able to annotate known tests as failing at either the test =
or ci layer to achieve a simple boolean overall result as to whether the =
testsuite is in an expected state.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hib...@li...=20
> [mailto:hib...@li...] On=20
> Behalf Of Max Rydahl Andersen
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:03 AM
> To: Szczepan Faber
> Cc: hib...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Hibernate] questions regarding development setup
>=20
>=20
> >> The day you write a (needed and usefull!) unittest that is not=20
> >> possible in our current setup then lets talk ;)
> >
> > I've already created patch with couple testcases using same package=20
> > layout on purpose.
>=20
> ok.
>=20
> >> No reason to change what just works.
> >
> > reasons: every time the developer cannot unit test=20
> non-public method /=20
> > class w/o public constructor. (every day :) ?)
>=20
> well, it has never been an issue since we have more than=20
> enough tests that does this, so again it just works.
>=20
> > Anyway I will just contribute a patch and let's see what you say...
>=20
> ok.
>=20
> > PS
> > Whatever you say, the failing tests / unreasonable test=20
> packaging just=20
> > impact the project credibility. But it's just my opinion and my=20
> > collegues.
>=20
> unreasonable test packaging ? Nothing *prevents* you from=20
> using another layout - and since our testsuite contains=20
> considerable more test than I've seen compared to other=20
> applications/frameworks it doesn't seem to be an issue in=20
> real life vs. =20
> theoretical rants.
>=20
> And do you rather want us to remove tests for known issues ?=20
> That sounds like you want us to hide the fact we know some=20
> part has a bug/issue ? how is that for credibility ?
>=20
> /max