quicklook uses, afaict, junit/testng to run/manage tests. the reports
will show any skipped tests that failed to run for whatever reason. I
know testng does this and i'm pretty sure junit does, too. So as long
as failed is 0 and skipped is 0, we should be ok.
On 8/10/11 11:08 AM, Jason Lee wrote:
> That's a fair point, but if someone else causes his test not to run
> (intentionally or not), he (not I) is going to fix it, most likely.
> If I'm making test changes, I certainly check that they all run
> correctly and I get 0 failures. Beyond that, I tend not to worry TOO
> much about others' tests, as I try not to make changes (even test
> fixes) in areas outside my own without talking to the owner, which
> gets us back to him (or her ;) fixing the broken test. :)
>
> My suggestion below is not a hard and fast rule, of course, but is
> generally what I live by when I'm checking the results of my daily
> cron'd full build.
>
> On 8/10/11 10:00 AM, Ed Burns wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:25:25 -0500, Jason
>>>>>>> Lee<jason.d.lee_at_oracle.com> said:
>> JL> Personally, if it says 0 failed, I'm happy, regardless of how many
>> JL> passed. :)
>>
>> Certainly, but asserting for 0 failed does not detect the case where a
>> test should have executed and passed but did not even get called. This
>> can happen if the build environment has some kind of misconfiguration,
>> or even due to some configuration problem on the hudson job.
>>
>> In my experience, the difficulty of consistently ensuring that all the
>> tests that are supposed to run are actually run increases dramatically
>> the more large and dispersed a team is.
>>
>> Does anyone else here share this opinion?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>