The main technical difference between surefire and failsafe plugins is the execution phase. Failsafe is executed, when the package is already executed and it's possible to e.g. run a server in pre-integration-test phase, run ITs and then shut it down. I believe, nowadays it's losing its value as most of the new projects are based on Spring Boot which uses an embedded server and just does not need this complicated setup anymore. Perhaps Quarkus does the same. So IMO it's okay it's not declared by default.
If we are talking about bigger projects where it could be reasonable to split UTs and ITs via naming conventions (*Test/*Tests and *IT accordingly), it's also okay that it requires manual declaration as e.g. you may want to run them separately in the CI/CD pipeline. So my vote is -1. On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 7:57 AM Rüdiger <snack...@sinntr.eu> wrote: > Hiho! > > I was wondering, what you all think about adding the failsafe plugin to > the super pom of maven 4. I often work with young teams, and it's difficult > to explain, why the surefire plugin works out of the box, but the failsafe > plugin does not... and of course, it's a nuisance to have to add it to > every project. > > Maybe unit tests used to be more important than integration tests in the > past, but my perception is that this is changing: ITs become more and more > the primary way of testing, while unit tests become more optional and focus > on more complex algorithms. > > Kind regards > Rüdiger > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
