>> Yes but the platform and engine are transitive, right? Yes. We can grab the classpath from the forked jvm via Jconsole and we should see these artifacts.
@Christian what happens when you just add new Engine with another version to the POM's dependencies or plugin's dependencies. The old version of JUnit5 Engine is overridden? We should decide which way is not error prone from the users perspective. WDYT? On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 6:23 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 18:20, Tibor Digana > <tibor.dig...@googlemail.com.invalid> a écrit : > > > Romain, that link in Resolver means that our Provider has transitive > > dependencies. This Surefire's Platform Provider + it's dependencies. Not > > the JUnit5's provider. > > > > Yes but the platform and engine are transitive, right? > > > Adding engine with another version makes sense to me in current situation. > > It's similar to what we are doing when we add junit:junit:4.12. > > My question is whether the Engine should have scope=provided in > Surefire's > > Provider in the future and the user is forced to add it anyway in his > POM. > > > > I wouldnt force but ensure it is made easy or even transparent based on the > api - platform and engines are discoverable for now, can become tricky for > the platform later but let's tackle it when it arrives. > > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:16 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Me too but > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/blob/d88ce541f3ba78a12422bdfa35c98cfb5783f9ea/maven-surefire-common/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugin/surefire/SurefireDependencyResolver.java#L142 > > > only handles a single artifact whereas junit5 relies on N > 1 artifacts > > for > > > its stack. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > < > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 08:23, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > " surefire provider forces 1.2.0" this is not good :-) i thought > > > surefire > > > > auto detect first one available in classpath > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:06 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > jupiter ;) > > > > > > > > > > junit 5 is not jupiter but platform+ engine*s* so it must detect > the > > > full > > > > > stack and not just the default. A first step can be to detect > > > > > platform+jupiter+engine but I guess we will get spock, cucumber etc > > > > engine > > > > > quickly so being generic can be worth it. In my case I have > > > > vintage-engine > > > > > - cause i have junit4 and junit5 extensions and it is broken cause > > > > vintage > > > > > uses platform method of the 1.3.0 and the surefire provider forces > > > 1.2.0. > > > > > > > > > > In my proposal, the project dependencies (likely scope test on user > > > side > > > > or > > > > > compile for engine/extension writers) is used and the plugin can > > > > > override/force some dependencies if needed. Alternative surefire > > could > > > > get > > > > > a specific config for that, not sure it does worth it. > > > > > > > > > > Hope it is clearer. > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 07:41, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > Odd, I am under impression surefire auto detect > > > junit-jupiter-engine > > > > > at > > > > > > runtime > > > > > > > > > > > > am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > > > -D > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:08 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does _NOT_ work and as mentionned you can test on meecrowave > > > > trying > > > > > to > > > > > > > upgrade the version in junit module. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The test classpath build ignores project and plugin > dependencies. > > > It > > > > > > faked > > > > > > > working until 5.3.0-RC1 cause no breakage was visible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When testing, dont forget to use jupiter, vintage engines + > > > platform > > > > > > stack, > > > > > > > otherwise code is compatible with 1.2 which gets loaded. The > doc > > > > > ignores > > > > > > > the platform and vintage engine and guess it was not tested at > > all > > > > > > checking > > > > > > > the code ;). Not a big deal since it is a "first" release but > we > > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > ablz to get it fixed quickly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 4 sept. 2018 23:51, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> a > > > écrit > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok perso I don't mind (it just need to be documented) > > > > > > > > But the issue is: users are used to simply upgrade their > junit > > > > > > > dependency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 07:37, Christian Stein < > > sormu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it works with Surefire 2.22.0 and JUnit 5.3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just add (or move) the test-runtime dependencies to the > > > Surefire > > > > > > plugin > > > > > > > > > element: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <build> > > > > > > > > > <plugins> > > > > > > > > > <!-- JUnit 5 requires Surefire version 2.22.0 or > higher > > > --> > > > > > > > > > <plugin> > > > > > > > > > <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > <version>2.22.0</version> > > > > > > > > > <dependencies> > > > > > > > > > <dependency> > > > > > > > > > <groupId>org.junit.jupiter</groupId> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <artifactId>junit-jupiter-engine</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > <version>5.3.0</version> > > > > > > > > > </dependency> > > > > > > > > > </dependencies> > > > > > > > > > </plugin> > > > > > > > > > </plugins> > > > > > > > > > </build> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just checking our sample builds over at JUnit 5. Which do > > _NOT_ > > > > do > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > the moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:32 PM Olivier Lamy < > > ol...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > very embarrassing issue which probably worth a quick > > release! > > > > > > > > > > Can you create a jira? > > > > > > > > > > As junit 5.3.0 has just been released, I might be happy > to > > > cut > > > > > > > 2.22.1 > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > quickly with only this fix. > > > > > > > > > > others wdyt? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 06:46, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > > > > > > rmannibu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jira seems down so sending a mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to upgrade Meecrowave to JUnit 5.3 since it is > > out > > > > > but I > > > > > > > > > > realized > > > > > > > > > > > the way surefire provider was developped for JUnit 5 > was > > > > > forcing > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > junit-platform-engine even adding it manually in the > test > > > > > > > > dependencies > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > plugin dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Side note: I didn't investigated other providers but I > > > guess > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > exact same but the API breakage are happening less > often. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I therefore created a PR to fix that -> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/193 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note: I didn't upgrade the JUnit 5 version in the same > > > > release > > > > > > but > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > should probably be done too in another commit/PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if you have release plans which could include > > > this. > > > > In > > > > > > > terms > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > issues I have in mind the other thing about JUnit 5 > which > > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > great > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > add is the support for display names instead of using > the > > > > > > > class+test > > > > > > > > > > names > > > > > > > > > > > in the logs and reports but this is less mandatory than > > > > > previous > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > fails with a NoSuchMethod error when using vintage > > engine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > > > > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > > > > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > > > > > > > > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | > > Book > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Olivier Lamy > > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Olivier Lamy > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > Tibor > > >
