Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Vishal Vishnoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thus, the above can be the default, as it's simple and work for most
people. AntUnit should consider providing an attribute which make
naming a combination of project and target name. Here's an example
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Vishal Vishnoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus, the above can be the default, as it's simple and work for most
> people. AntUnit should consider providing an attribute which make
> naming a combination of project and target name. Here's an example
>
>
I'd rather want to m
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Vladimir Egorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The absolute path to build file depends on the system.
Agreed.
> In JUnit, the fully-qualified class name does not depend on the
> system.
I'm with Vishal here, the project name probably maps better to the
fully qualified class n
To: user@ant.apache.org
Subject: Re: AntUnit tests need fully-qualified names
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Vladimir Egorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The plainlistener that comes with AntUnit uses test target names as
results names.
The plainlistener is more or less just a proof of concept.
dimir
P.S. I don't see any problem with separating (relative path to) build
file and target name.
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:16 PM
To: user@ant.apache.org
Subject: Re: AntUnit tests need fully-qualified names
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Vladimir Egorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The plainlistener that comes with AntUnit uses test target names as
> results names.
The plainlistener is more or less just a proof of concept. When I put
it together I needed someting to quickly show to myself that AntUnit
really
Hi All,
The plainlistener that comes with AntUnit uses test target names as
results names. Since two or more build files can define target named
testFoo, this can lead to naming conflicts. JUnit has the same issue; it
solves it by using fully-qualified test method names.
Although one can wr
