Hi Dan,
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:58:14AM -0500, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>
> Anyone have any thoughts about this (one way or the other)?
>
> Speak now. I'll do this by Lazy Consensus
> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus) later this
> week if no-one objects.
I'm +1 for this. As you mentioned, it would definitely be nice to be able
to see "skipped" tests. For instance I know for sure there's a few handler
systests which have been disabled by appending an "s" to the method name...
Cheers,
Peter
> Dan
>
>
> On Friday 02 March 2007 12:15, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> > With the move to Surefire 2.3, we can finally use JUnit 4 if we want to.
> > I've done a small amount of investigation to see what would be needed.
> > MOST of our unit tests will run unmodified with JUnit 4 and would not
> > need to be updated. The tests that don't run are the ones that
> > require a pre-class setup (use a "suite" method). Those would need to
> > be updated. They are pretty simple to update. The "suite" method is
> > changed to be something like:
> >
> > @BeforeClass
> > public static void startservers() {
> > ....
> > }
> > @AfterClass
> > public static void stopservers() {
> > .....
> > }
> > and all the test methods need a @Test annotation.
> >
> >
> > The tests that would need modification include:
> > 1) JMS tests (startup broker)
> > 2) One of the WS Policy tests (just simple setup/teardown)
> > 3) A BUNCH of the System tests.
> >
> > A couple hours of work would do it. However, what are peoples thoughts
> > on moving to JUnit 4?
> >
> >
> > The main thing I like about it is to disable a test, you can add an
> > @Ignore annotation. This then shows up when you run "mvn test" as a
> > skipped test. It's much easier to find disabled tests so you know
> > where they are to fix them later.
> >
> > Thoughts?
--
Peter Jones
IONA Technologies Inc.
E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (w) 709-738-3725 x22 | Fax: 709-738-3745
84-86 Elizabeth Ave. St. John's, NL A1A 1W7 Canada
