JunitTestRunner commit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JunitTestRunner commit

Maarten Coene-2
Hi,
Since this is more or less my first commit to the Ant codebase, could someone please review my change to JunitTestRunner ?And if all is ok, what is the correct way to merge this into the 1.9.x branch?

Maarten
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JunitTestRunner commit

Stefan Bodewig
On 2018-04-04, Maarten Coene wrote:

> Since this is more or less my first commit to the Ant codebase, could
> someone please review my change to JunitTestRunner ?

Typo in WHATSNEW (until rather than untill).

I think the change is good, although I'm not sure whether there is a
difference in how a failure in the static initializer of a real test
class gets reported now. I.e. do I get the exact same error/failure
output from your testStaticInitializerErrorTestCase that would be
created in 1.10.3?

> And if all is ok, what is the correct way to merge this into the 1.9.x
> branch?

Personally I prefer to do it the other way around - commit to 1.9.x and
merge to master - but that's too late now. In either case, as the master
branch is evolving merge conflicts will become more prevalent over
time. Most likely you will get by with just a single conflict in
WHATSNEW that you'll need to resolve manually. Something like

git checkout 1.9.x
git cherry-pick 30c9dee9bad90e56703554d21819cec6033276dc
# most likely resolve conflict and commit
git cherry-pick 20b6163989fdf4e98d7739fca3cdf9f18a5bdc7a

should probably work. If you need any help, please ask.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JunitTestRunner commit

Maarten Coene-2
Thanks Stefan for your time and patience :-)I think I finally got it merged into the 1.9.x branch...(Where are the days where everything was so easy with SVN ;-))
I did a little test, and I didn't see a difference compared to 1.10.3 in the error output when a test has a failing static initializer.
thanks,Maarten


      Van: Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]>
 Aan: [hidden email]
 Verzonden: donderdag 5 april 8:25 2018
 Onderwerp: Re: JunitTestRunner commit
   
On 2018-04-04, Maarten Coene wrote:

> Since this is more or less my first commit to the Ant codebase, could
> someone please review my change to JunitTestRunner ?

Typo in WHATSNEW (until rather than untill).

I think the change is good, although I'm not sure whether there is a
difference in how a failure in the static initializer of a real test
class gets reported now. I.e. do I get the exact same error/failure
output from your testStaticInitializerErrorTestCase that would be
created in 1.10.3?

> And if all is ok, what is the correct way to merge this into the 1.9.x
> branch?

Personally I prefer to do it the other way around - commit to 1.9.x and
merge to master - but that's too late now. In either case, as the master
branch is evolving merge conflicts will become more prevalent over
time. Most likely you will get by with just a single conflict in
WHATSNEW that you'll need to resolve manually. Something like

git checkout 1.9.x
git cherry-pick 30c9dee9bad90e56703554d21819cec6033276dc
# most likely resolve conflict and commit
git cherry-pick 20b6163989fdf4e98d7739fca3cdf9f18a5bdc7a

should probably work. If you need any help, please ask.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



   
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JunitTestRunner commit

Stefan Bodewig
On 2018-04-05, Maarten Coene wrote:

> I think I finally got it merged into the 1.9.x branch...

yes, looks good.

> (Where are the days where everything was so easy with SVN ;-))

I've maintained svn branches long enough to recall merging is a pain
regardless of which SCM you use :-)

> I did a little test, and I didn't see a difference compared to 1.10.3
> in the error output when a test has a failing static initializer.

Great, thanks

       Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]