need test-internal scope

[GoogleCodeExporter]

When using the Flex Automation framework some libraries need a scope of
"internal" but doing so will compile the code into the deployed SWF rather
than just the test SWF.

It would be nice to see a "test-merged" and "test-internal" scopes so you
can control how the test SWF is compiled. 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by llin...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 2:58

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Is there a reason why just using the <scope>test</scope> won't work? That 
should make it a dependency only 
during the test phase, and be ignored during the compile phase.

Original comment by RedB...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 3:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The problem I run into with <scope>test</scope> is that it acts like
<scope>merged</scope> but isolated to the test phase. Generally 
<scope>test</scope>
is all that is needed but sometimes I need it to act like 
<scope>internal</scope>
instead but isolated to the test phase.

Problem with merged is that it will not compile the library into the SWF unless 
code
is referenced. When using the automation framework I don't want any code 
referenced
so I need to use the internal scope so it compiles the whole library into my 
SWF.

Here is a clip from a blog post by VELO that explains the difference between 
internal
and merged and thus my problem with test.

Flex-mojos supports 6 scopes:
external to -compiler.external-library-path
internal to -compiler.include-libraries
merged to -compiler.library-path
rsl to -runtime-shared-library-path for SWF files
caching to -runtime-shared-library-path for SWZ files
test to -compiler.library-path only for test running

Cheers,
Lance

Original comment by llin...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 5:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am trying to use the FlexMonkey automation framework with FlexUnit and 
FlexMojos.
When I get past this hurdle I will put together a page for your wiki if you 
like.

So far it is working out ok with exception of this one problem.

Original comment by llin...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 5:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

OK, I understand what you're trying to do now. You are not automating your main 
application, but automating 
just a test application.

Velo, do you see any problem with adding a test-internal scope? I think we 
should leave the test scope as it is 
(essentially the test-merged).

Original comment by RedB...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 5:18

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't think we need several tests scopes.

I believe, test scope could do internal only, instead of doing merged.  What do 
you
think of that?

I check in this on TRUNK, can you test it for me?

VELO

Original comment by velo...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 1:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

VELO, RegBugz, I can't think of a situation that would cause a problem with the 
test
scope being internal only. I will build the trunk today and give it a try!
Thanks for the help,
Lance

Original comment by llin...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 6:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Me neither..

Well, test SWF will be bigger, but I really don't care on getting a huge test 
SWF. :D

Any way test your scenario, if it is ok I will close this issue.

Original comment by velo...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 6:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Compiled and tested against 2.0M7-SNAPSHOT from the trunk and everything works 
great!

Thanks,
Lance

Original comment by llin...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 8:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by velo...@gmail.com on 30 Sep 2008 at 8:14

• Changed state: Fixed