I just compared the surefire report generated by master with Junit5 with the one in the feature branch for java4 and
Junit5: Lists 76 Tests Junit4: Lists 138 Tests So all the time we have been relying on a test-tool that doesn't really seem to do its job ... I strongly think we should get rid of Junit5. Chris Am 08.02.18, 14:07 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>: 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 correctly. I committed my changes to the "feature/junit4" branch, so you can have a look before voting. Chris Am 08.02.18, 10:12 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>: Ok ... today Justin pointed out my changes from yesterday caused tests to fail 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 failed. 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 __ Chris Am 26.01.18, 10:47 schrieb "Justin Mclean" <[email protected]>: Hi, > Well the one thing I like with TestNG is the support for parametrized tests. > 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? Thanks, Justin
