On 11/7/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote: > On 11/6/06, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> > >> > >> > Paulex Yang wrote: >> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> >>> did we decide not to go to TestNG? >> >> Sigh...I guess there must be too many ones have waited too long for >> >> TestNG...(including me) >> > >> > I don't understand - what do you mean? >> Nothing but a joke:). I mean, the TestNG depends on j.u.c, so that it >> cannot be used for months, so people may think let's just use JUnit >> instead... >> >> Ignore it, I'm all for TestNG...:) > > If you're looking for another opinion, I'm not convinced. JUnit 4.x > seems just as capable as TestNG. There was a(or several?) long long thread discussing the TestNG/JUnit 4 comparison, and IIRC most people prefer TestNG at that time, I just don't want to trig another thread on this topic...We have waited so long for TestNG, so let's just go for it if nothing is preventing us now...:)
This is NOT the impression I got from the various threads. I was under the impression that we were waiting to demonstrate that TestNG could be used to execute tests with the various mix-n-match uses cases (OS, failing, etc). I was waiting for an actual demonstration of the complex use cases. It's possible I missed the consensus; I couldn't keep up with all of the threads. -Nathan
> > -Nathan > >> > >> > geir >> > >> >> >> >> Paulex - being desperate >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> Paulex Yang >> China Software Development Lab >> IBM >> >> >> > -- Paulex Yang China Software Development Lab IBM