Re: Should *IT tests be run with failsafe instead of surefire?
Hi Yes those tests should ideally be run in the verify phase. Also as someone whom does not have docker running always, I would like for those docker based tests to graceful be disabled and the build can skip those tests and continue building. It happens for some components, other fails with "docker environment not found" error. On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:22 PM Craig Ziesman wrote: > I've been working with the Camel build and investigating test failures. > > There are many tests that use TestContainers and Docker in *IT.java classes > that are currently being run by the surefire plugin. In my opinion, these > tests ought to be run by failsafe, as they seem to meet the definition of > integration tests, not unit tests, and should not cause the whole build to > fail if any of them fail. > > I would be happy to generate a PR to move these tests to surefire if there > is no objection from the team. > -- Claus Ibsen - @davsclaus Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
Re: Should *IT tests be run with failsafe instead of surefire?
Hi, Yes, the integration tests (*IT.java) should be running with the failsafe plugin. Which ones are these? If you would like to submit a PR or provide a few of those, I can take a look (opening a ticket is OK too). Kind regards On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:22 PM Craig Ziesman wrote: > I've been working with the Camel build and investigating test failures. > > There are many tests that use TestContainers and Docker in *IT.java classes > that are currently being run by the surefire plugin. In my opinion, these > tests ought to be run by failsafe, as they seem to meet the definition of > integration tests, not unit tests, and should not cause the whole build to > fail if any of them fail. > > I would be happy to generate a PR to move these tests to surefire if there > is no objection from the team. > -- Otavio R. Piske http://orpiske.net
