Hi First sentence: Set this to "true" to ignore a failure during testing.
It is clear for me - we want to ignore a failure during testing ... So if the testing process is not starting for any reason or was broken for reasons other than test failure this property should not be considered. Most of the case we use it in CI systems for generating test reports to analyze trends of test stability and so on ... So if the report of tests is not generated or is truncated property should not be considered. And last, surefire has plenty of parameters, introduced next one for cover 1% of cases is form over substance. Surefire code and configuration is complicated enough. We should find a way to simplify it - not introduce something more complicated. Current code of surefire is difficult to understand, we have many corner cases introduced by plenty of configuration options. When we have simpler code, bug fix will be easier, more contributors can help us to improve. Now we see every bug, new features produce a lot of noise and it is a problem to merge it. And in consequence when users wait two years for fixing something ... I don't think they are happy about it. pon., 14 mar 2022 o 02:55 Tibor Digana <[email protected]> napisał(a): > In case of the user property *maven.test.failure.ignore* the MOJO must not > throw any exception which is interpreted by the Maven Core as BUILD > SUCCESS. > > We have received an internal requirement to change the behavior of the user > property *maven.test.failure.ignore* so that the behavior will have one > exception. > > Suppose that you have JDK 1.8 but you use: > /jre/java --add-reads ... > The outcome is JVM exit with an error message. > I agree with Herve who also says that *maven.test.failure.ignore* should > not allow the MOJO to throw the exception. It is not a typical JVM > segmentation fault or another JVM crash where we cannot do anything about > it, and where the entire build would crash in the command line which > of course means that the build cannot normally be interpreted as BUILD > SUCCESS. So we are still on the same level of failures related to the test > purposes. > > On the other hand, Olivier has reopened the issues SUREFIRE-1426 and > SUREFIRE-1681 where the exceptional behavior of the feature is expected. > This is exactly the reason why I closed these tickets several years ago and > my proposal was to not to have any exceptions in the feature behavior and > the proposal was to introduce a new user property for exact use cases. > The next idea, which comes from two developers, would provide us with the > same non exceptional and exact behavior of the user property > *maven.test.failure.ignore* but it would also provide us with new user > property in the case with fine grade control of the build errors, e.g. > *maven.test.jvm.error.ignore*. > > > I would like to open the discussion on this topic. You're welcome! > > > Cheers > Tibor > -- Sławomir Jaranowski
