Hi Steve, we have seen the test code, but have not started using it yet directly. So, from our part, feel free to change it, but please let us know when you finish these more recent changes so that we can use it avoiding rework. Another point, I always have problems trying to run the ant commands from the cddlm repository because everything is always missing in my machine and than I give up. I wanted to know what are the requirements for running the "ant all" or "ant test". I have ant 1.6.5, maven 2.0 and java 1.5. The current error I have is "Unable to find typedef schemavalidate". Do you know what may be missing? Thanks, Ayla Steve Loughran wrote:
Ayla Debora Dantas de Souza - Projeto Ourgrid wrote:
Hi,
in our existing JUnit tests regarding CDL resolution we usually consider all the resolved CDL, because we think it is interesting to test resolutions in the configuration part too, although they may not be used in the System part.
I propose to return the cdl:cdl document in the resolve operation to explore more situations on the tests, but if you think just the system verification is enough, ok. In fact just considering the first child of a system is not good.
I think my resolution process can be fairly destructive on the configuration parts. Also, I only try and resolve stuff under system...other bits of the configuration I may or may not process. Since how we do that is out of scope of the spec, I dont think we can test it,
Just another point: I did not understant what you meant by 2. we retrofit the system wrapper to all existing CDL tests.
Yes, I realised that that was not needed. I thought I'd have to wrap everything underct:resolved in a cdl:system element, but that is needless, I can leave that alone. What I do have to do is assume that the response coming back from a resolve() operation is a cdl:system element, and compare all the stuff underneath.
Have you tried using the test code yet? I must apologise for making lots of changes to it this week; it has been pretty unstable and one I make this next change everyone's code will have to change. Then I need to sit down and fix the failures that it is correctly showing up...
-steve