Hi all,

so I just finished porting PLC4X back to JUnit 4 ... it was a quite straight 
forward thing. While at it I also ported all to use AssertJ a little more.
So far I didn't see any problems. Parametrized tests are a little ugly from my 
point of view (See Plc4XS7ProtocolTest)
What I did notice, was that when I ported a lot of the tests, I had to fine 
tune them as:

assertTrue(X == Y, "some text") 

We're comparing X and Y with different types, which should not work ... I had 
to explicitly cast the reference type to make the tests pass.
Also I did notice, that I couldn't just click on a test-package with IntellIJ 
and simply run the tests with Junit 5 after porting back to 4 I can now do this 

I committed my changes to the "feature/junit4" branch, so you can have a look 
before voting.


Am 08.02.18, 10:12 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:

    Ok ... today Justin pointed out my changes from yesterday caused tests to 
    I tried and had to agree with him ... the code was simply wrong. But I 
wrote tests for it and when manually executing the tests in IntelliJ they 
    As I did a full maven build with tests before committing and Jenkins also 
was fine with my changes it seems that the current Junit 5 support is simply 
not reliable. 
    I did see that there are now also options for running parametrized test 
without some insane hackery, so I would also join your opinion that I think 
it's best to switch to Junit 4
    So I'll whip up a vote thread on this. Just that we get to vote a little 
more here __
    Am 26.01.18, 10:47 schrieb "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com>:
        > Well the one thing I like with TestNG is the support for parametrized 
        > With JUnit 4 this sucks greatly and it very easy with TestNG. I do 
think that we need parametrized tests as we do have a lot of options to test.
        There are some existing parametrised tests and I've used it in Junit4 
(ages ago) and don’t remember it being that bad, but I’ve not used that in 
TestNG so perhaps it’s better there?

Reply via email to