[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1241?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15261075#comment-15261075
]
Tibor Digana commented on SUREFIRE-1241:
----------------------------------------
>> Eclipse and IntelliJ. Why would they not likewise distinguish between unit
>> and integration, for example?
It's because IDE do not distinguish between phases of the build lifecycle. The
Maven has build lifecycle but IntelliJ is forced to run any class as a test
because the user want's to run it during development. But Maven is in different
position, where unit test are run on test-classes and ITs are run on JAR files.
For instance the JAR is typical uber file and the content differs from
test-classes.
> include everything and exclude nothing
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: SUREFIRE-1241
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1241
> Project: Maven Surefire
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Chris Pennello
>
> I would like to suggest we alter the default values for {{<includes>}} and
> {{<excludes>}}.
> The current defaults for the includes are
> {noformat}
> <include>**/Test*.java</include>
> <include>**/*Test.java</include>
> <include>**/*TestCase.java</include>
> {noformat}
> and the current default for the excludes is
> {noformat}
> <exclude>**/*$*</exclude>
> {noformat}
> This causes Surefire to behave differently when finding tests from several
> other independent implementations--Eclipse and IntelliJ. Both of these IDEs
> find all {{@Test}}-annotated methods. Thus, when testing with the IDEs, you
> run many more of your tests than Maven does using Surefire (presuming that
> you choose names or class nesting that are subject to the default rules).
> I think it would be very valuable for Surefire to behave consistently with
> respect to these two pretty popular IDEs.
> I am curious about the origin of the defaults for these rules. Maybe there
> are some great reasons to limit the inclusions and have non-empty exclusions
> by default? But if so, then why don't the IDEs do the same? What are the
> risks?
> Absent any such reasoning, it seems to me like it would be most helpful to
> the user base to make the tests we discover as inclusive as possible.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
