+1 to this proposal, we should standardize on one test framework across the project from what's presently out there.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:17 AM, sblackmon <sblack...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I propose that we bind failsafe plugin to TestNG rather than JUnit > project-wide. > > The reason is simple - TestNG supports placing tests into groups and > declaring dependencies that determine which order all tests in the module > run in - and JUnit does not. > > Consider the following scenario - a provider module test plan includes the > following: > a) collect documents > b) validate the collected documents against their upstream schema(s) > c) convert the collected documents to activity and activity object > schema(s) > d) validate the converted documents, using an appropriate validator for > each verb and object type > > If we have the ability to specify the order of test execution, that test > plan might be 2, 3, 4, or more separate test classes. > > If not, all of that mostly orthogonal testing has to be corralled into a > single test class just to ensure proper order of execution. > > All of our provider and persist module can have more complex yet more > simply organized tests using this model. > > As for surefire plugin for unit testing, I’m ambivalent - I would think we > can leave it on JUnit unless there’s a clear benefit to switching it also. > > Making the switch should be easy - > 1) remove org.junit imports in every class ending with IT > 2) import the corresponding org.testng.annotations instead. > 3) swap the failsafe binding in the streams-master pom > 4) confirm the same number of tests run during integration-test and all > still pass. > > Any objections or related ideas to consider? > > Steve > > > > >
