Regarding suiterunner vs JUnit, I prefer the suiterunner API:
test methods can throw Exceptions, also assertion failures generate Exceptions so you can put one catch(Exception) at the bottom of your method and print out any useful info before throwing the exception on, rather than separate ones for AssertionFailedError and Exception which looks very messy. Alternatively you can leave out the try/catch altogether - saves typing if you just want the stacktrace -- I Don't find the failures/exceptions distinction useful in JUnit.
I often simply have my JUnit testXXX throw Exception since that is unexpected and a test failure/error. I don't quite get how SuiteRunner is different here.
don't have to call super(String) - me being lazy again
This went away with JUnit 3.8 - thankfully! That was my biggest pet peeve of JUnit.
which tests run can be determined by a property file so if you want to run just a few tests out of a suite you don't need to recompile/comment out bits of code
<test> and <batchtest> in Ant support if/unless properties and I always have it set up to be able to run a single test upon demand.
can also put classpath info in the property file, which seems better than adding it to your junit script or CLASSPATH
Not usually an issue when using Ant and <junit> with a reusable classpath.
flexible reporting of results - which you already mentioned - and which I haven't used...
more flexible than <junitreport>?
Erik
