Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Avro >> mail # dev >> Re: [jira] [Commented] (AVRO-890) Maven archetype for creating Avro service projects


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [jira] [Commented] (AVRO-890) Maven archetype for creating Avro service projects
I think we can bind it to 'install' -- it will then run after all the
things it depends on have run 'install'.  It might end up running the test
after it packages and installs to the local repo and then fail, but that
is acceptable for the archetype IMO.  It won't 'deploy' without the test
completing however.

-Scott

On 9/21/11 4:29 PM, "Stephen Gargan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>This sounds good, we'll need to veto the normal integration-testing but I
>think removing the archetype build extension will take care of this. To
>insure it runs before 'install' it might make sense to bind it to the
>'verify' stage. I'll play around with it and see what can be done.
>
>
>On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Scott Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 9/21/11 3:48 PM, "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On 09/21/2011 02:55 PM, Stephen Gargan wrote:
>> >> As a suggestion, I could try to veto the integration testing as part
>>of
>> >>the
>> >> normal build and separate it into a profile. The profile could be run
>> >>during
>> >> development but otherwise be omitted from builds. It would remove the
>> >> independent verification you get from the continuous integration,
>>but it
>> >> might be acceptable in this situation as the sample projects are
>>pretty
>> >> static.
>> >
>> >Could we change it so that this integration test is only run with 'mvn
>> >install' and not with 'mvn verify'?
>>
>> I think we can do that by binding the execution phase of the integration
>> test to install.  If that works, it would be the best option IMO -- we
>> won't catch problems with simple 'mvn test', but will surely before a
>> release.  These samples will rarely need to change anyway, and if so the
>> change should be minor.
>>
>> >
>> >Doug
>>
>>
>>