On Mar 28, 2014, at 2:29 AM, Vladimir Ivanov <vladimir.x.iva...@oracle.com> wrote:
> PS: John mentioned recently that there's a convention for java/lang/invoke > tests to be in JUnit format. I'm not sure it'll improve the code in any way > (maybe TestNG will?). I hope John will express his opinion on this, if it's > important. If a test is in JUnit format, please keep it that way. I (at least) run these tests from NetBeans which knows about JUnit. Extracting logic from MHT and changing the test framework directly dilutes my interactive testing workflow. If my IDE had a jtreg plugin, I wouldn't need to worry about which jtreg tests use which style, but the world isn't perfect, yet. — John P.S. Same comment to the people that are eager to change JUnit to TestNG apparently just because it's the new thing. TestNG was a step backwards in my workflow because the CLI *stinks* compared to JUnit, making it nigh-impossible to manually perform one-off runs. I assume that will be fixed but for now I patch my workspace back to JUnit in order to work in my IDE.
