Le mar. 7 oct. 2025 à 21:02, Henning Schmiedehausen <[email protected]> a écrit :
> TBH, I am not sure what you are talking about: > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 11:18 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Henning, >> >> Please take the time to read the beginning of the thread, the proposal is >> to drop surefire+failsafe since they are superseeded by junit platform, it >> literally means supporting all test engines (including junit 3, 4, testng, >> spock, cucumber, ....) and common reports (mainly xml in our ecosystem - >> but excludes the maven site). >> > > This is from the junit site: > > [image: Screenshot 2025-10-07 at 11.59.05.png] > > They literally say "Use failsafe/surefire with junit platform". How is > that replacing? > junit platform includes a launcher abstracting any test engine, what is missing is a maven plugin wrapping it like https://github.com/sormuras/junit-platform-maven-plugin as mentionned, my proposal is to just develop that part and delegate the wrapper only > > -h > > > Tibor: this will always be the case when you have a dependency and ultimately you can say the same of Java, at some point you have to decide what you do own and what you do not. I do not think it will be that bad cause ultimately their business will rely on maven as well, several big contributors rely on it too (spring for ex) and we can still fork if needed which wouldn't be worse than current surefire codebase so even if I fully weight your point and in a SWOT it would be a risk, I think it is worth doing it, at least for pom with modelVersion=4.1.0.
