buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Boisvert <alex.boisv...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Date Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:07:14 GMT
Can't promise yet but I'll see what I can do.

alex


On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:35 AM, John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com> wrote:

> Will this change make it into next week release ?
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM, John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Awesome, let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Alex Boisvert <alex.boisvert@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, I see what you mean now.   When I added the run task in buildr
> 1.3.5,
> >> I
> >> didn't really think about the equivalence to "runtime" dependencies from
> >> Maven world.  I wanted the run task to require  little / no
> configuration.
> >>
> >> Anyway, looking back at it now, I think it would be better to use
> >> run.dependencies.   And following this, we can update other tasks to use
> >> it
> >> as well.  It will help us align buildr's dependency model to Maven's
> model
> >> as well.
> >>
> >> alex
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:18 AM, John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > What about run.classpath this is the set of runtime dependencies, I
> >> always
> >> > thought that *.classpath was the predecessor of *.dependencies and
> soon
> >> > run.classpath will be replaced by run.dependencies.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Alex Boisvert <
> >> alex.boisvert@gmail.com
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Well, there's currently no notion of runtime dependencies so test
> >> > > dependencies is the closest we have.
> >> > >
> >> > > alex
> >> > >
> >> > > On Monday, January 17, 2011, John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > > Well I'd expect in this instance to add slf4j or commons logging
> to
> >> the
> >> > > > compile dependencies and log4j to the runtime dependencies. I
> think
> >> it
> >> > > makes
> >> > > > more sense to include compile dependencies instead of
> test.compile.
> >> > What
> >> > > do
> >> > > > you think ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Alex Boisvert <
> >> > alex.boisvert@gmail.com
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> I thought it would be a better default.   Test dependencies
> usually
> >> > > >> include addional dependencies to run the software (i.e.,
compile
> >> > > >> against inteface, run against implementation.)  A concrete
> example
> >> > > >> would be compiling against SLF4J and running against Log4J.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> alex
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Saturday, January 15, 2011, John Shahid <jvshahid@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> > Hey all,
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I came across lines 174-177 in lib/buildr/run.rb
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >     after_define(:run => :test) do |project|
> >> > > >> >       project.run.with project.test.compile.dependencies
> >> > > >> >       project.run.with project.test.compile.target if
> >> > > >> project.test.compile.target
> >> > > >> >     end
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > My question is why are the dependencies used in compiling
the
> >> tests
> >> > > added
> >> > > >> to the run task ?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message