On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 at 19:55, Stanimir Stamenkov via users
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sat, 6 Jun 2026 19:14:27 +1000, /Olivier Lamy/:
>
> > I definitely know what the problem is, and was a bit scared of this :)
> > You can use something such
> > -Dsurefire.stackTraceMaxFrames=-1
> > I would say that every higher value is useful for JUnit 5+ when
> > parallel execution is enabled.
> > Long story short, the goal is to fix this
> > https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/issues/3215
> > But in your case, using Junit4, it's not necessary.
> > I will try to find a way to improve this.
>
> Thank you for the explanation and the suggested setting – works the
> problem around for me.
>
> I'm not aware of the implementation details, but the property name
> suggests it is looking at the stack trace.  Maybe looking at the current
> thread and thread group could be more reliable, and faster.  It could be
> more reliable as the test itself may spawn a thread where the output
> happens.
>

It's already the case :)
I implemented what I didn't want to, because it's just another
reflection code because of Java 8 requirement
So for Java 9+ users, there will be usage of the lazy StackWalker, see
PR https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/3374
It's improving the default situation still not as fast though but
(except if we can find a really better solution, I have some ideas but
need to experiment them) we will probably need to disable this by
default as it's very useful only for junit 5+ users using the junit
parallel execution.

>
> > On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 at 16:51, Stanimir Stamenkov via users
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've opened:
> >>
> >> -   https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/issues/3373
> >>
> >> with the example I'm trying with.
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to