XComp commented on code in PR #20805:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/20805#discussion_r1004177467
##########
flink-test-utils-parent/flink-test-utils-junit/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/testutils/junit/RetryOnFailureTest.java:
##########
@@ -18,17 +18,16 @@
package org.apache.flink.testutils.junit;
-import org.apache.flink.testutils.junit.extensions.retry.RetryExtension;
-
-import org.junit.jupiter.api.AfterAll;
-import org.junit.jupiter.api.TestTemplate;
-import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtendWith;
+import org.junit.AfterClass;
+import org.junit.Rule;
+import org.junit.Test;
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;
-/** Tests for the RetryOnFailure annotation. */
-@ExtendWith(RetryExtension.class)
-class RetryOnFailureTest {
+/** Tests for the {@link RetryOnFailure} annotation on JUnit4 {@link
RetryRule}. */
+public class RetryOnFailureTest {
Review Comment:
Sorry for responding that late and being picky about it. But I think we
should improve the commit messages of the commits to make it clearer where they
belong to. The JavaDoc commit is actually a documentation improvement.
Therefore, the commit message should start like `[hotfix][docs] Clarify javadoc
exceptions`. The revert of the JUnit5 migration is actually related to
FLINK-27740. It was unintentionally introduced there. Hence, I'd recommend a
commit message like
```
[FLINK-27740][test] Revert JUnit5 migration for RetryOnFailureTest
It's actually meant to test the JUnit4 RetryRule feature. The corresponding
JUnit5 Extension is tested in `RetryOnFailureExtensionTest`.
```
The FLINK-27740 commit needs to be backported to 1.16 as a consequence to
ensure proper test coverage in the `release-1.16` branch.
--
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: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
