yeah, this is why we skip the tests sometimes :)
your idea of changing the logging in the test does seem the best way to go.
thanx for sticking with this.
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Camille Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The base test case this is extending, ZkTestCase, was never ported, so
> I think it would be a bit more than just copying the test over. I
> think backporting ZkTestCase isn't that big a deal, but then we also
> have the whole slf4j upgrade that's going to start biting us over many
> of the back ports we try to do. I could just take out the logging in
> the test so I'll do that if we think that's the way to go.
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Benjamin Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yeah, branches are a pain to maintain. we have done both ways: checked
>> in the patch without the test and also backported the test. the later
>> is the preferable one in my opinion. the test case is a whole new
>> class right? can we just copy the class from trunk?
>> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Camille Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>> I'm trying to get the bug fixes for
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1046 and
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1069 ported back to
>>> the 3.3 branch, but the tests written for these fixes won't port
>>> because the test case was never checked in to that branch. What should
>>> I do here? Check in the fixes to the branch with no test? I'm not
>>> entirely crazy about that option but it seems like that has been done
>>> before (the test in question was originally created for a different
>>> bug fix that was ported without tests to 3.3 from trunk).
>>> I'm ok to do that for these fixes but going forward do we really want
>>> to be pushing fixes in anywhere without tests? I'd hate to have a
>>> "fix" that doesn't work and we don't catch due to this.