[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
[buckminster-dev] Re: Headless (JUnit) launching
|
Hi Achim,
On 03.09.2009 19:44, Achim Demelt wrote:
Great work! We are using the Buckminster JUnit Command and refactored JDT
and PDE from Google Code for a few weeks already and they are working
great. I assume the JUnit version in the google svn is not quite
up-to-date? I've made a few changes against it, mostly some logging in the
TestListener and catching some configuration and launching errors in the
command itself, should you be interested in a patch.
You're correct. The code at Google's SVN repo is terribly outdated. I have a
new version waiting to be checked into the Eclipse repository. In
particular, the new version writes XML output that is very similar to what
the regular JUnit Ant task produces. This output can be correctly parsed by
Bamboo and hopefully Hudson, too.
I'd be interested in your changes so that I can compare them to the changes
that I've made. Can you please file a bug in the Google Code project and
attach a patch with your changes?
Done. Issue #1 ;)
Two questions of my own, though:
1) Are there any plans/has there been any discussion about providing JUnit
support as an actor instead of/in addition to a command?
There are no discussions or plans that I am aware of. Personally, I think
that launching is a workspace-related thing and as such, a command is the
best way to handle this. I may be wrong, though...
2) Do you have a good way to deal with platform-specific settings in your
launch configurations? We would've really liked to have launch
configurations that we can use both on our development boxes and on the ci
server, so we can be reasonably sure that the tests we execute locally are
configured the same as on the server. However that's a bit problematic in
light of platform-specific plugins like swt and filesystem. Right now we
provide a template launch configuration that contains all
platform-specific plugins from all platforms and copy that to create new
configurations. Do you have a better idea to handle that? We don't want to
use "All plug-ins and features" in the unit tests, because we want to
isolate the tests and plug-ins under test as much as possible during
unit-testing. And "Add required plug-ins" only adds requirements for my
current platform.
That's a good question. Honestly, I currently have no platform-dependent
bundles in my test launch configs. Off the top of my head I'd say that you
can safely run the configuration containing all platform-specific bundles.
Equinox should filter out any bundles that are not allowed to run on the
current platform. Have you tried that?
That's what we're doing right now. It works, but has a tendency to break if one is not very careful. For some reason, the Launch dialog
tends to alter the configuration just by opening and launching it. Although Delta packs are installed on all machines, that tends to break
the config for the other platform. Launching without the dialog (from Buckminster or the Favorites) works good, though.
Regards,
Carsten
