-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 542
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[SUREFIRE-1963] Detecting multiple test-frameworks #399
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Think it must not be integrated but instead we should have the providers to be greedy, ie while we find tests with a provider they must be executed once (the first provider in the list supporting the test is used). No reason to fail when we know how to do. If user wants to enforce a particular engine then he must configure it but it is the design of surefire already so failling wouldn't help IMHO. |
Make providers to be greedy it is not easy, we have many corrner cases. The most of projects (99%) not need support for multiple providers and one provider it is ok, We shouldn't complicate code for detecting and executing provaiders only for a few cases - it is complicated enough now. This change don't change current behavior, with empty |
@rmannibucau for you information @slawekjaranowski has one situation in his work which is related to human factor when some colleagues update the dependencies. The QA team wants to be notified when such situation happens and then the QA team would add a new provider. This way no test would be isolated from execution. Basically this is my understanding so far. |
The problem which I have (and other users - look in linked issues) is that in some of situation when dependency tree of project can change because of transitive dependency and so on... another testing library/ framework get be available on project - and in result is possibility that some test will be skipped silently. I think that get possibility to detect such situation is enough, in standard case one project use one testing framework ... so I will not complicate more code of surefire for such corner case. |
@slawekjaranowski |
@Tibor17 |
Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:
for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not
require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without
pulling in other changes.
[SUREFIRE-XXX] - Fixes bug in ApproximateQuantiles
,where you replace
SUREFIRE-XXX
with the appropriate JIRA issue. Best practiceis to use the JIRA issue title in the pull request title and in the first line of the
commit message.
mvn clean install
to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check willbe performed on your pull request automatically.
mvn -Prun-its clean install
).If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.
To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.
I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.