Ivan, Thank you for detailed answers! I would put a great care to @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction. As stated in junit5 docs [1] it does not support all features and unfortunately it is not clear how limited it is. Also, it is some kind of transitional mechanism which was not designed for being a long term solution.
And I fully support an idea of refactoring GridAbstractTest. I think it is possible to make a significant improvement here. [1] https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#running-tests-junit-platform-runner пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 17:41, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com>: > > Hello Nikolay. > > The prime benefits are more comfortable work with flaky tests, Java 8 tests > compatibility, user-friendly syntaxis in parametrized tests and others. > The most significant features list you can find in IEP-30 Motivation > section. > > If you have any specific questions about JUnit5 feel free to ask me. > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:55, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > Hello, Ivan. > > > > May be I miss some mail - if yes, can you repeat it. > > What is advantages of migration from junit 4 to 5? > > Why we should do it? > > > > > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:33, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Ivan, > > > That is my thoughts according to your questions. > > > > > > 1. I tried to implement test suits with JUnit4 compatibility layer. The > > > basic concept is to use @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) @SelectClasses > > > ({...})[1] and on > > > CI Ignite it works fine. > > > > > > 2. According to @Rules, there are several ways to solve it: > > > 2.1 Leave JUnit4 code without changes. It will work because of > > Vintage > > > module > > > 2.2 Rewrite the @Rule as an Extension. The work of extension is > > similar > > > to the @Rules work, but it is extracted in an Extension class. > > > For more information about extensions, please, follow the IEP [2]. > > > In my opinion, the easiest and the most understandable way is to leave > > > GridAbstractTest in current form. It will work with JUnit5 > > > syntaxis and abilities. > > > > > > 3. I faced a couple of problems during dealing with dynamic and static > > > tests in one project with JUnit5. The problem occurs with surefire > > version: > > > static tests work fine with 2.21x and earlier and with dynamic tests, the > > > situation is vice versa, it works with > 2.21x surefire version. > > > We can use helpful surefire dependency to use static tests with the > > newest > > > surefire version [3], but dynamic tests become unavailable from pure > > > Maven and accordingly from CI Ignite (from IDE all is fine). > > > I can suggest leaving this type of tests on JUnit4 on the current stage - > > > they are in the vast minority. > > > > > > Let me comment on your side notes. > > > > > > I am not against the stable and widely-used test library usage. All I > > want > > > to say that it is not necessary in case of the main testing Ignite > > > framework (Junit) already provides the mentioned features. > > > > > > At the initial stage of improvements 3->4 I am planning to remove > > > JUnit3TestLegacyAssert, JUnit3TestLegacySupport classes. I guess that > > > during this work > > > I will face with an issue that you are mentioned - turning instance > > methods > > > to static. It is because of beforeTestsStarted and afterTestsStarted > > > methods - I want to replace them by methods with BeforeAll, AfterAll > > > annotations. But the point is that methods under such annotations must be > > > static. Just now I am not sure about fully removing > > > GridCommonAbstractTest class, but the need for static methods is a fact. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/85ba3a88d661bb05bbb749bd1feaf60cd9099ddc/examples/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/testsuites/IgniteExamplesSelfTestSuite.java#L59 > > > [2] > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5 > > > [3] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1778 > > > > > > вс, 24 февр. 2019 г. в 10:15, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > > > Indeed junit5 has a lot of powerful features which can improve testing > > > > process. > > > > > > > > But first we should go through a migration process. There are several > > > > items which looks quite challenging. > > > > 1. Test suites support. Correct me if I am missed it, but I have not > > > > found a concept of test suites similar to junit3/4 ones. CI in Ignite > > > > heavily depends on test suites. Is there an alternative in junit5? > > > > 2. The majority of our tests extend GridAbstractTest which in fact is > > > > a core class in Ignite testing. Writing a test without extending it is > > > > not a good idea. Currently it employs number of junit4 concepts, e.g. > > > > test rules which as I saw are not supported in junit5. So, it sounds > > > > that some changes in GridAbstractTest need to be done. During > > > > migration from junit 3 to 4 GridAbstractTest used kind of mimicry, it > > > > can be used as a base class for junit3 and junit4 tests at the same > > > > time. How can we address transitional period now? > > > > 3. Also we have bunch of tests using our home-brewed parametrization. > > > > You can find them by searching usages of > > > > ConfigVariationsTestSuiteBuilder. This part was rather tricky during > > > > migration to junit4. > > > > > > > > Do we have a plan for all these items? > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > Couple of side notes. > > > > > > > > Regarding dependencies minimization. Actually, I think it is important > > > > for junit itself as a library. Many libraries try to minimize > > > > dependency. In Ignite we do so as well. But in my opinion it is not > > > > the case in context of libraries used during testing. If we have > > > > useful, stable and widely-used test library which can improve our > > > > processes why should not we use it? > > > > > > > > Regarding removing leftovers left after junit 3->4 migration. > > > > Actually, I think that GridAbstractTest and GridCommonAbstractTest can > > > > be refactored in order to simplify further development and migration > > > > to new testing framework. For example, there are a lot of instance > > > > methods which can be turned to static methods. Various start/stopGrid > > > > methods fall into this category. They can be extracted into some > > > > utility class and imported statically. Perhaps, after number of such > > > > refactoring we will be able to write tests without extending > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest. > > > > > > > > пт, 22 февр. 2019 г. в 18:33, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan! > > > > > > > > > > Junit5 differs from JUnit4 not so strong as 4 from 3 version. Of > > > course, > > > > > we can use AssertJ and other libraries, but it is more comfortable to > > > > > use functionality from the box. Moreover, the JUnit team provides > > > strong > > > > > support for its products and it is the core JUnit principle - > > minimize > > > > > third-party dependency [1]. > > > > > > > > > > According to Parameterized tests, it has several cons in JUnit4: > > > > > 1. Test classes use fields and constructors to define parameters, > > > which > > > > > make tests more verbose > > > > > 2. It requires a separate test class for each method being tested. > > > > > In JUnit5 it has a simplified parameter syntax and supports multiple > > > > > data-set source types, including CSV and annotation > > > > > > > > > > Impact on daily test development does not so differ from development > > > on > > > > > JUnit4. We also can use annotations to mark methods as tests, but > > some > > > > main > > > > > annotations have > > > > > different names - you can see it in the ticket description [2]. You > > > have > > > > to > > > > > use those annotations and different import, but these are minor > > > changes. > > > > > We can change suites from static to dynamic tests [3], but I am not > > > sure > > > > > that it is necessary. If you have any arguments in favor of dynamic > > > > tests, > > > > > I am ready to discuss them. > > > > > > > > > > Now I see that changes in GridAbstractTest are not required. Only > > > > > improvements in JUnit 3->4 migration, which were given in IEP. Other > > > > JUnit5 > > > > > features we can use with additional imports. The problem can appear > > > with > > > > > dynamic tests because we can not launch static and dynamic under one > > > > > surefire version. I made a preliminary migration on examples module, > > > you > > > > > can take a look on it [4], but now it is still in work. > > > > > > > > > > I tried to find some other JUnit5 features and added them to IEP. If > > I > > > > miss > > > > > something, please, let me now, we will also take it into account. > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/wiki/Core-Principles > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10958 > > > > > [3] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests > > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5888 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:45, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your efforts! > > > > > > > > > > > > I checked a section "Motivation" in IEP and I think that we should > > > add > > > > > > more details there. You provided mostly examples of more convenient > > > > > > assertions. But there are other options to deal with it. E.g. > > AssertJ > > > > > > library [1] (I think that we can consider it even after migration > > to > > > > > > junit5). It would be great if we can describe some junit5 features > > > > > > which can make our life simpler and there is no alternative in > > > junit4. > > > > > > E.g. we have the similar Parameterized concept in junit4, so it > > does > > > > > > not look as a big win here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, an impact on everyday development should be estimated. As I > > > > > > know, junit5 has a compatibility layer which allows to migrate from > > > > > > junit4 seamlessly. But as I understood you would like to use new > > > > > > junit5 features. And we have well-known GridAbstractTest which > > > > > > historically was bound to junit3, now is bound to junit4. Should we > > > > > > change it significantly for junit5? Should we change other existing > > > > > > tests? Suites? > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please address my concerns? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's discuss pros and cons. I will be happy to help there. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/ > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:07, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you, access is fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have created the corresponding IEP [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I am going to continue work on this. If somebody has any > > > > suggestions > > > > > > or > > > > > > > additions I am ready to discuss them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 01:42, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Done, please check access now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov < > > ivanan...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you for the response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My wiki username is "ivanan", the related mailbox is > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:38, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpav...@apache.org > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now admin service is unavailable (gives error 503). I'll > > add > > > > rights > > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > is up and running. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you share your wiki username? I can't find any users > > > who > > > > > > signed > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the wiki with any similar email/username > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:26, Ivan Fedotov < > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to formalize migration to JUnit5 and create > > > IEP > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > include related issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I already started to work on one of the issues [1] and > > > > created a > > > > > > > > draft > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > the corresponding IEP [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, give me rights for confluence to create IEP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973 > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > https://gist.github.com/1vanan/1f81319f1dc6d6ebca30c216fdd82759 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. > > > > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ivan Fedotov. > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > -- > Ivan Fedotov. > > ivanan...@gmail.com -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
