kriegaex commented on PR #133: URL: https://github.com/apache/xalan-java/pull/133#issuecomment-1837031567
To me this is obvious, but maybe the two of you need an example: Assuming that I simply use `System.setErr(mockPrintStream)` before the negative test and reset to the original stream again afterwards, which would be easy enough to do. That would suppress the logged stack trace. So far, so good. But what if in the same test another type of error occurs that would be helpful to see in stdErr? Maybe unlikely, but tests exist to break if something unexpected happens. Otherwise, we would not need them. Now if we use our modern multi-core computer to run tests in parallel? That can be configured easily in Surefire. If multiple tests share one JVM, there is only one stdErr. BTW, the Maven process itself also uses that JVM to report things, which might end up on stdErr, because the logging framework used points there. Everything that would be logged to the mock stdErr stream while our negative test runs would be lost. Hence my remark "not thread-safe". Is that worth suppressing the call stack? Not to me. I even appreciate to see it in the test log,because that is exactly what we are testing. If we configure Surefire to create test logs, the error log would be neatly tucked into the report for that one test. Only on the console, everything in one long list. If you do not like that or, looks at the generated test reports, e.g. _xalan/target/surefire-reports/TEST-org.apache.xalan.VersionTest.xml_. You see, how the logs are nicely separated by test, e.g.  Or towards the bottom:  Of course, this does not replace but only complement the console report. There is also the Maven Surefire Report Plugin, which we can use to generate HTML reports. Unfortunately for me, the plugin does not have any options to include the stdOut and stdErr output into the report, like I know it from my Spock reports. I wonder why this option is missing, because converting the XML to HTML is just an XML transformation, as you Xalan guys surely understand. No idea why they ignore the console log tags and do not even include them optionally. Maybe you guys are even happy about it, because you do not want to see the log output in the report. I do, because I only mainly look at reports when tests are failing, not when they are passing. There might be an alternative test report plugin for Maven, I have not checked. Actually, I am mostly fine with scanning the console logs. I am used to it, and my mind (and mouse) just skip what I am not interested in at the moment, or I use full-text sea rch to find specific things. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@xalan.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@xalan.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@xalan.apache.org
