Apparently this has been around for awhile, but I've never had a need for it - @Ignore [1]. An annotation to ignore a test (at the method level) with an optional message. Supposedly, ignored tests are to be reported in the analysis report. I'll have to test that.
-Nathan [1] http://junit.sourceforge.net/javadoc_40/org/junit/Ignore.html On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If anyone's curious, here are the JUnit 4.4 release notes that have a good > summary of the new stuff - assertThat/Matchers, assumptions and theories. > > http://junit.sourceforge.net/doc/ReleaseNotes4.4.html > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Alexei Zakharov < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As far as I remember my two years old experiments with TestNG - it >> groups all Junit tests (say from all classlib modules) into the one >> group while running in JUnit compatibility mode. So the reports >> produced by JuntReport didn't look very nice. By the way, I remember >> there was some old contribution about xml-based exclude lists for >> JUnit that allowed fine-grained (method-based) control over the test >> execution. I don't remember exact JIRA number. However, we may search >> for it. It was from George Harley. >> >> Regards, >> Alexei >> >> 2008/6/16, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > On 13/06/2008, Sean Qiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > 2008/6/12 Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > > > This is slightly off track, but my concern about TestNG is that >> there are >> > > > already quite a lot of steps for someone new to Harmony to get the >> source >> > > > code and run the tests (both for the whole of Harmony and for a >> single >> > > class >> > > > library module). Certainly for Eclipse users if we switched to >> TestNG >> > > this >> > > > would add another step, although I'm not sure about command-line >> users. >> > > > >> > > >> > > The cost to make use of current tests is low, IMHO. >> > > I have mentioned that we can add TestNG target to replace Junit >> target. >> > > From the command-line users' perspective, they still use the same >> > > command to run the test. >> > > The only difference would be the command will invoke TestNG to run >> our >> > > test. >> > > For Eclipse users, they can adopt plug-in for TestNG, it is quite the >> > > same as plug-in for junit. >> > > So I think we can migration to TestNG smoothly for the user. >> > > What's more, they can pick up their desired tests more conveniently. >> > >> > >> > >> > My point was that for Eclipse users it would be an extra step to >> download >> > the TestNG plug-in, where as the JUnit plugin already comes with >> Eclipse. I >> > realise that this isn't the biggest consideration, but I feel that our >> setup >> > is already quite complex so I thought it would be worth mentioning. I >> would >> > assume that switching to JUnit 4 would not require any extra steps >> because >> > Eclipse already has support for it embedded. >> > >> > >> > For test developers, on the other hand, it is a little complex. >> > > But we want to upgrade to a new tool, no matter Junit 4 or TestNG, >> we >> > > need to pay for it.Their efforts are similar. >> > > For TestNG, we need add annotations for each testcase, classify them >> > > to right groups. >> > > The good news is we still can use original assert* as before since >> > > TestNG include JUnit's Assert class. >> > > As Nathan mentioned , we can use hamcrest as well if we want. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Of course if switching to TestNG solves some really major problems >> then >> > > it >> > > > would probably be worth it, but the only thing I can see that it >> gives us >> > > > over JUnit 4 is being able to run different sets of tests on >> different >> > > OS's >> > > > and to me that doesn't seem as important as having a project that's >> easy >> > > to >> > > > access. Just my 2p worth... >> > > > >> > > >> > > We can replace the exclude files to get a more accurate tracking for >> > > failed test. >> > > We can tell difference between public API tests and harmony specific >> > > implementation tests . >> > > We can archive all tests together into a jar. >> > > I think there should be other benefits as well :) >> > >> > >> > >> > I think it would be good to be able to reduce the exclude list to just >> > contain individual methods and keep track of it a bit better, although >> I >> > think some of this can be achieved with JUnit and using different >> folders. >> > I agree the TestNG solution seems neater and more flexible, I'm just >> not >> > convinced yet that the benefit we would be getting is worth the cost to >> > upgrade. I'm also wondering about the overhead for developers. E.g am >> I >> > going to have to add four different annotations to every new test I >> write in >> > the TestNG system? >> > >> > >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > Best Regards >> > > Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu >> > > >> > > China Software Development Lab, IBM >> > > >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Sian >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Unless stated otherwise above: >> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >> number >> > 741598. >> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 >> 3AU >> > >> > >
