I like failsafe as well and in our jenkins instances we do not use failsafe:verify. Instead the build will go red for a broken surefire test but only yellow for a broken IT. Adding more plugins into to default lifecycle slows down execution as well and for some projects it is just not needed. Regards Mirko -- http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/ https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/ (http://osrc.dfm.io/mfriedenhagen) https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Andreas Gudian <[email protected]> wrote: > 2014-10-28 17:54 GMT+01:00 Benson Margulies <[email protected]>: > >> Personally, I wonder why we don't merge them. >> >> Failsafe adds some lifestyle phase bindings and then changes some >> defaults. Otherwise, it's a giant anti-DRY. Why not expand surefire to >> have the extra executions with shifted defaults for things like test >> class names? >> > > As Surefire and Failsafe are practically the same with only differences in > their lifecycle binding, default values for some of the configuration > parameters and distinct properties for the parameters (e.g. -Dtest=.. vs. > -Dit.test=...), there wouldn't be much to merge. Both are rather slim > specializations of the same abstract mojo implementation. > > I can't think of something that you can't technically do with the one mojo > that you can do with the other. Merging them would just make it harder to > configure the different executions for the different phases. > > It's just depending on the use case, which of them is already > out-of-the-box configured to match the requirements - or is at least close > to it. > > > >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Oliver B. Fischer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > @Paul: Yes I think so or we find a way more convenient in this moment. >> > >> > @all: I think this shows perfectly why Failsafe should be integrated as >> > Surefire already is. >> > >> > Oliver >> > >> > Am 28.10.14 16:02, schrieb Paul Benedict: >> >> >> >> Thanks. Now I know when to use this. For my situation, which is >> >> integration >> >> testing against an existing database, I don't need to setup an >> >> environment; >> >> this explains why I never needed to use the plugin. There are other >> cases >> >> the plugin will be valuable, but I wonder if this is why most others >> stick >> >> with surefire. I guess programmers don't scratch unless there's an itch. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> The answer is on the index page of the failsafe plugin [1]. >> >>> "If you use the Surefire Plugin for running tests..." >> >>> >> >>> /Anders >> >>> >> >>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/ >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> (to >> >>> [email protected]> >> >>> https://bitbucket.org/obfischer/bugreport-maven-failsafe.git >> >>> lot >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
