fair enough.. I won't do it On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Christopher Shannon <[email protected]> wrote: > I've started to use the Timeout Junit rule in some places. This is because > of thread safety issues with @Test. In JUnit's javadoc it says: > > THREAD SAFETY WARNING: Test methods with a timeout parameter are run in a > thread other than the thread which runs the fixture's @Before and @After > methods. This may yield different behavior for code that is not thread safe > when compared to the same test method without a timeout parameter. Consider > using the org.junit.rules.Timeout rule instead, which ensures a test method > is run on the same thread as the fixture's @Before and @After methods. > > So I don't think requiring a timeout in the annotation itself is a good > thing for every test in case people want to use the Timeout rule instead. > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> There's a annotation I contributed with seventu that we already use to >> require name on every method's Parameterized.Parameters. >> >> >> I'm thinking to extend its usage and require timeout on every test we >> write: >> >> @Test(timeout = 60000) >> >> >> >> The good thing about this, is that we wouldn't leave cases where tests >> start to take a long time to run.. and they fail with a timeout >> instead. >> >> >> >> Is there anyone opposing to such thing? >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Clebert Suconic >>
-- Clebert Suconic
