[GitHub] [maven-surefire] Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns

2019-11-11 Thread GitBox 
Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for 
JUnit 5 test reruns
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-552738991
 
 
   Sorry about not finishing everything up, my schedule should be clearing up 
for a bit soon for future contributions.


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.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

[GitHub] [maven-surefire] Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns

2019-11-07 Thread GitBox 
Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for 
JUnit 5 test reruns
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-551276389
 
 
   Yeah, I've just been a bit busy recently with coursework. 


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.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

[GitHub] [maven-surefire] Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns

2019-11-03 Thread GitBox 
Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for 
JUnit 5 test reruns
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549215015
 
 
   ```java
   public class AppTest {
@Test
public void pass() { }

@Test
public void fail() {
Assertions.assertTrue(false);
}

static List params() {
return Arrays.asList(
new Object[] { "One" },
new Object[] { "Two" },
new Object[] { "Three" }  );
}

@ParameterizedTest 
@MethodSource("params")
public void parameterizedPassOnThree(String key) {
Assertions.assertEquals("Three", key);
}

@ParameterizedTest 
@MethodSource("params")
public void parameterizedFailAlways(String key) {
Assertions.assertEquals("None", key);
}
   }
   ```
   
   
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21371686/68098095-cecc1780-fe88-11e9-9cc4-596048c6fa1b.png)
   
   Oh yeah... I see that now. But I also noticed something else:
   
   **Running with no config options** - `3.0.0-M3`
   
   
[image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21371686/68097714-99bec580-fe86-11e9-92a1-dc8fbef81cd2.png)
   
   ```
   
   
   ```
   
   **Running with no config options** - `3.0.0-SNAPSHOT`
   
   
[image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/21371686/68097953-ebb41b00-fe87-11e9-83e1-7784f0e80e10.png)
   
   ```
   
   
   ```
   
   The parameter-set-number used to be reported but no longer is... :thinking: 
   


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.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

[GitHub] [maven-surefire] Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns

2019-11-03 Thread GitBox 
Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for 
JUnit 5 test reruns
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549207446
 
 
   Well, reporting still uses the method `toClassMethodName`. So as of right 
now reporting format should be the same as it was. This PR's changes only helps 
the `launcher` choose which tests to rerun.
   
   Since normal tests do not have brackets we can easily separate the normal 
tests from the parameterized tests by checking if the legacy name contains a 
`[` or `]`. Those characters will never appear in normal `@Test` legacy names.  
   
   If we want to show that different runs of `@ParameterizedTest` are unique 
with the `[number]` there would be some extra handling.  But for `@Test` 
reporting I do not think there will need to be a lot of changes.
   
   Before I do anything to change the report format I would like to have a 
minimal example of what the xml output would be for parameterized support just 
to be clear on the intended format. 


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.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services

[GitHub] [maven-surefire] Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns

2019-11-03 Thread GitBox 
Col-E commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for 
JUnit 5 test reruns
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549204098
 
 
   > Can you then prepare a PR with the legacy name on the top of this commit?
   
   For clarification, are you asking for using the legacy name in 
[RunListenerAdapter](https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/master/surefire-providers/surefire-junit-platform/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/surefire/junitplatform/RunListenerAdapter.java#L159)
 where `SimpleReportEntry` are generated? That way the report would include 
parametrized indicators such as `test(String)[1]`?


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.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services