Github user kevdoran commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi/pull/120#discussion_r177852495 --- Diff: minifi-c2/minifi-c2-framework/src/test/groovy/org/apache/nifi/minifi/c2/core/service/StandardC2ProtocolServiceSpec.groovy --- @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more + * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with + * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. + * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 + * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with + * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + * limitations under the License. + */ +package org.apache.nifi.minifi.c2.core.service + +import org.apache.nifi.minifi.c2.api.provider.heartbeat.HeartbeatPersistenceProvider +import org.apache.nifi.minifi.c2.model.* +import spock.lang.Specification + +class StandardC2ProtocolServiceSpec extends Specification { --- End diff -- Good question, @jzonthemtn. There is no technical/functional reason these tests couldn't be written as Java junit tests. The groovy framework I'm using here, [Spock](https://github.com/spockframework/spock), offers a few advantages: - Detailed error messages for failed tests/assertions - A reasonable terse/structured syntax that allows tests to serve as feature/method requirements/specifications. This was really beneficial in writing [StandardC2ServiceSpec](https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi/pull/120/files#diff-f485f870b41384487a26ff065fd25467), which is extremely repetitive. I wanted the tests to be short and self-descriptive so I could keep track of what combinations were covered. - Powerful mocking capabilities (with some advantages over Java libs such as Mockito) - built-in test templating and data driven parameterization (although I did not use that feature in this test cases).
---