I hope no-one is cursing me for my latest change to the way we use ./lib/testing.properties. Let me explain...
In the past, I've had a lot of difficulties with this file - sometimes I've accidentally committed my own local changes. Sometimes other people have done the same to me. I HOPE my latest change will stop this happening ever again.
I have implemented an analogous scheme to that already used with accounts.properties:
1. The repository now maintains a new file called ./lib/testing.properties.template. This file defines what we all hope is the most comprehensive set of test properties needed to run ALL unit test slicks.
2. The build.xml testing targets continue to use the file called ./lib/testing.properties to define their run-time properties.
3. The build.xml has been modified to verify the presence of a file called ./lib/testing.properties. This verification is ONLY performed when executing one of the unit testing targets. If the file does not exist on the local machine, then a helpful message is emitted and the run is terminated.
4. Each individual user MUST create a local file called ./lib/testing.properties. This is best done by copying the ./lib/testing.properties.template and then modifying it if necessary.
I apologise to anyone who is inconvenienced by my change. Emil and I discussed this strategy more than a year ago. I implemented it today because I rarely have time to work on the project and it was very relevant to the other changes I have been making.
.................................===> EMIL - PLEASE NOTE!!!!
5. Will my change break cruise control? If yes, would you please create a ./lib/testing.properties file that is appropriate to the maintenance server?
6. I have tried to keep the template file consistent with the last version of ./lib/testing.properties in the repository. I have changed the comments to make it easier to understand.
7. I do not understand why several slicks are not running as originally intended:-
7a. NetworkAddressManagerServiceLick currently sets up ZERO tests because the addSuite calls are commented-out in start().
7b. MediaServiceLick is commented-out of the testing.properties file.
When I run it locally on my own machine, one of the 2 tests fails.
7c. SipProtocolProviderServiceLick is commented-out of the testing.properties file. When I run it locally on my own machine, fourteen of the 25 tests fails.
7d. GenericProtocolProviderServiceLick is not defined in the testing.properties file. When I run it locally on my own machine, it fails because it does not add any tests to the suite.
7e. IcqProtocolProviderSlick is not defined in the testing.properties file. When I run it locally on my own machine, it fails because it does not add any tests to the suite.
If this is situation is "optimal" given the current state of the project, I think we should document the state of these slicks in the testing.properties.template file to prevent others from wasting unnecessary time investigating the missing tests.