P.S. This is what the new maven2 surefire report should more or less look like (notice the main diff being the hide/unhide of exception data)
http://testng.org/doc/samplereport/index.html On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng > into some of the 4.1 unit tests? > > The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test (as > well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful > features: > > -) Using assertions : The testng runtime checks for assert errors, so our > reliance on extending base classes becomes much less needed..ie: > > assertEquals(foo.getValue(), 1); > > turns into > > assert foo.getValue () == 1 : "Foo didn't equal 1"; //or just assert > foo.getValue() == 1; > > > -) Annotations, well I think everyone knows the benefit to this. But the > additionally nice thing here is that your method names don't need to drive > any part about how your tests are run. The setup/teardown logic could go > away for more friendly uses of configuration, the least of which is being > able to say new things like run my method: > > beforeSuite/beforeTestClass/beforeTestMethod/etc.. > > Also, grouping and "dependsOnMethod" semantics allow a whole new level of > control. > > -) Is completely happy to run all junit tests. > > -) Supported in the maven2 core by yours truly. > > -) We have commit access to it which will give instant gratification to > anyone disliking/wanting some feature. (though I doubt this will come up) > > It's not a huge deal for me, it's just something that is nice to have. I > won't add the dependency in unless I get an ok for it as it is impactual on > our daily happiness and I certainly don't want to add something in that will > become an annoyance for anyone. > > jesse >
