You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@buildr.apache.org by John Shahid <jv...@gmail.com> on 2011/01/16 04:53:24 UTC
Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
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 ?
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
Can't promise yet but I'll see what I can do.
alex
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:35 AM, John Shahid <jv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will this change make it into next week release ?
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM, John Shahid <jv...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 ?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by John Shahid <jv...@gmail.com>.
Will this change make it into next week release ?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM, John Shahid <jv...@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 <al...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 ?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by John Shahid <jv...@gmail.com>.
Awesome, let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Alex Boisvert <al...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 ?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 ?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by John Shahid <jv...@gmail.com>.
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 <al...@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 <jv...@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 <jv...@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 ?
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
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 <jv...@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 <al...@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 <jv...@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 ?
>> >
>>
>
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by John Shahid <jv...@gmail.com>.
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 <al...@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 <jv...@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 ?
> >
>
Re: Why are test dependencies added to runtime dependencies
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
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 <jv...@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 ?
>