[GitHub] [maven-surefire] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-553403097 @Micky002 I did not mention this because simply parallelism is not fixed. It is non-trivial issue which is actually not about JUnit5 but the design of the mechanism how we handle the test events into the reporter. Yes, this means that we have to rework some code and it is not liitle. Therefore we are aiming to do this in M5. As one can see there are milestone releases because these will rework the legacy code and that's the only way to fix some issues. It's not because we like programming, but it's because we are in the situation where nothing else may help. 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-553395200 @Col-E no problem. You are always welcome. @Col-E @jon-bell hey guys, we started the release VOTE, you can participate too, Feel free to subscribe in the mailing list https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6b9987be2fbd4d82daf8aaabbd1d58dfa2a533598770e0423d0b5ee0@%3Cdev.maven.apache.org%3E 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-552713741 @Col-E I fixed the issue with unique test representation in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1716 Thx for your effort. 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-551237886 @Col-E Can we continue on making the test unique? 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549863884 @Seijan I guess you mean the combination of rerun and parameterized. The rerun should work with pure tests but not yet with parameterized ones. In this issue we only fixed our previous fault in the code. It was merged and we then have discussed the next issue in reports, that's what you can see on the console and in the XML report. We only need to guarantee unique identity of tests and then we should expect that the combination of rerun and parameteried tests would reun as expected. That's why @Col-E is working on it. Truly we should jump to another issue but we do not have issues in GH so we discuss it here. 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549215289 The answer is in the history of the Adapter class. I don't say it was better in previous version, nothing but a different. 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549214210 @Col-E You should be facing strange behavior with the report. It's not strange but the implementation we never dedicated to JUnit5. The reporter things that it is still the same metod and therefore a second run is seen as rerun. It does not know that it is method [1] and [2] etc. Therefore we are reworking the interprocess communication because this is the prerequisite to fire and handle more events thant it was before and sign the phase of normal run and the phase of rerun. After this we can reimplement the report. We also need to have `UniqueId` instead of guessing the identity of method run by class and name description. This is quite a lot and cannot be done in one release, therefore we split the work in to several milestones and we put ordinal bug fixes. See this roadmap https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/251. You will see there what i have described. 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549208624 ok, let's change the methodology. Although the provider is able to run parameterized test, run `mvn test` with real POM (without rerun) and see what happens in the test summary on the console and the XML report in `target/surefire-reports`. I guess you will see the same problem what @Seijan found in https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1558 The problem with JUnit5 and the Adapter that we never know what annotations are used. We only can see some strings and signatures and list of method arguments but that's basically all regarding the test method. 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549204514 Yes, this was my plan but we have to run the unit tests and Platform ITs because i am not sure if they would succeed. We may have a problem with the brackets but the tests will show us a problem. Your opinion? 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] Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns
Tibor17 commented on issue #252: [SUREFIRE-1711] Support @ParameterizedTest for JUnit 5 test reruns URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/252#issuecomment-549200081 @Col-E I will implement [skipAfterFailureCount in JUnit5 provider](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1710) but it won't work properly without `legacy name`. The XML report needs to have unique names for generating isolated report entries. Ping me if you have any problem wih `legacy name`. 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
