Since this has moved forward, would you be able to apply the same to Groovy 4?  
With this in place, moving commits (with tests) to older release branches 
requires more effort.  The Groovy 3 branch has an even older structure, but it 
is not taking fixes at that high of a rate.

What was the logic for what .java files stayed under "src/test/groovy" and 
which ones made it over to "src/test/java"?  I did prefer one unified file tree 
for tests.

Has there been any consideration for moving "src/spec/test" into 
"src/test/groovy"?  Or are those the tests that go with the language docs.


P.S.
In general, it would be nice to see 1) JUnit 5 for tests and 2) assertScript 
''' test code ''' over bare groovy in test methods.  When working on parser or 
classgen changes, it is a bit of a barrier to ensure all the groovy code still 
compiles and executes successfully during an experiment.


________________________________
From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 3:14 AM
To: Groovy_Developers <dev@groovy.apache.org>
Subject: [EXT] PR to move tests to src/test/groovy

External Email: Use caution with links and attachments.

Hi folks,

We moved to the standard "src/main/groovy" (and src/main/java)
directories a long time ago. Likewise for src/test/groovy for all
modules except the core project. I created a PR for also moving the
core tests from "src/test" to the standard place:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/2194__;!!GFN0sa3rsbfR8OLyAw!biHaRXJ-g1UR119VMsgZeaa4MZ4dAL5mG_TaJVZwKoh7EbNFJmbxk-rlXsmt5ToogfBKt7JtXBNJrDhk5WZY9g$

It is a bit of a sideways move in the sense that it doesn't make any
difference to the overall dev experience, but I think it is useful to
be using the standard folders. Let me know if anyone objects to
applying the PR. It will be a little bit painful if you have a whole
bunch of tests you are about to commit/refactor, so I can wait until
convenient for everyone. You'll want to resync your IDE with the
Gradle changes once it has been committed (assuming we go ahead).

Cheers, Paul.

Reply via email to