Le lun. 29 sept. 2025 à 14:51, Christoph Läubrich <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I think this thread really starts confusing. > > 1. surefire/failsafe is not part of maven so it can not be "dropped" > from maven 4 > You're partially right, let me add what was ambiguous: - do not port surefire/failsafe to maven 4 api - make the related repo maven 3 only and once we'll drop maven 3 we'll move the repos to read-only state > 2. instead I assume the proposal is to replace the default mojo bind to > the test phase in the jar lifecycle(!) to something else > Yep > 3. This than might result in retiring failsafe/surefire on the long run > +1 > > Apart from that I already mentioned in the the last "round" for the same > reason it might be better to have no default binding for the test-phase > then everyone can choose what fits best with a simple plugin entry in > the (parent) pom (and no this won't make maven a new ant). > I already mentionned that we should probably not fall in that until: 1. we assume there is no default binding for everything - including compiler => just use ant OR 2. we keep a default for most common steps of the build (package can be the immediate need since it is the most "common" command) and test is there. We stay (I do strongly hope) with conventions over configurations so we must have something but I would be happy to consume junit plugin instead of doing our own since it overlaps a lot now. > > Am 29.09.25 um 13:42 schrieb Gary Gregory: > > Curious: What about folks who rely on other frameworks like TestNG? > > > > Gary > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 3:18 AM Romain Manni-Bucau > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'd like to start a thread about potentially dropping surefire totally. > >> The rational is that surefire (and failsafe) are mainly an abstraction > >> layer on top of main test providers. > >> However, since JUnit5 the platform/engine is itself such an abstraction > >> layer and a runner. > >> > >> On another side, testng and junit4 are slowly getting abandonned - even > EE > >> TCK started to move. > >> > >> In terms of additional features we do have the maven site integratoin - > but > >> I doubt it is much used outside and to be honest it can be replaced > with a > >> github/dev-factory link with more benefit these days. > >> > >> So overall I think we can converge by dropping surefire plugin in favor > of > >> a thin wrapper of junit5 console runner ([1]). > >> > >> Short terms I'm sure Christian could help us getting something fast > based > >> on its implementation ([2] - including a small surefire compatibility > mode) > >> and long term it will reduce the maintenance cost we do have for a very > >> poor gain in current world (site and remoting are no more key features > >> thanks the CI and doc evolution). > >> > >> Wdyt? Is maven 4 the mometum to do it? > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://docs.junit.org/current/user-guide/#running-tests-console-launcher > >> [2] https://github.com/sormuras/junit-platform-maven-plugin > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog > >> <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog < > https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old > >> Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >> < > https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064 > > > >> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
