Oh, OK, we did know about the Wiki page, but didn't take it seriously, because otherwise it worked pretty well for us until we ran into this issue.
Thanks anyway, I guess we'll try to go on using a workaround and see how far it gets us. Regards, Matej. On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 1:32:01 PM UTC+1, laeubi wrote: > > This strategy (PerSuite) is only supported in Java EE, CDI and Web modes. > > Also please read the warning about "PerSuite" here: > > > https://ops4j1.jira.com/wiki/spaces/PAXEXAM4/pages/54263848/Reactor+Strategies > > > so it is very likely that it would produce inconsistent behaviour in > OSGi modes. > > Am 09.03.2018 um 13:26 schrieb Matej Ferencak: > > Hi all, > > > > In our integration tests it’s common to have an abstract class with > > @Test methods where common / boilerplate test code is executed, > > > > with subclasses which implement abstract methods for actual test > > specialization. > > > > We are also grouping tests in a suite, to minimize container startup > > overhead (we use Karaf). > > > > This means that practically one execution consists of a suite with one > > container running several probes, spread over several concrete class > > implementations of an abstract class with contains test methods. > > > > The problem we found, however, is that in such test suite, only one > > concrete subclass is ever executed (even though logs suggest otherwise), > > and all other subclasses are ignored. > > > > So the tests are executed N times (N = number of concrete classes), but > > each time only one (typically the last class in a suite) is actually > > probed (N times overall). > > > > The obvious workaround would be to use PerClass instead of PerSuite – > > but that would significantly increase our test execution time. > > > > Also, analysis of the bug showed that even this code path is not 100% > > „clean“. > > > > More detailed explanation including the test case can be found at: > > > > https://github.com/Traxpay/issues-paxexam-abstract-suite > > > > The project also includes a workaround which we are testing right now > > (see TraxpayProbeRunner.fillChildren() method). > > > > We can’t suggest an actual solution right now. > > > > Let me know if you need more info or if there is a better way to report > > this (Jira?). > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Matej. > > > > -- > > -- > > ------------------ > > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] <javascript:> > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "OPS4J" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an email to [email protected] <javascript:> > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- ------------------ OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
