[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-446?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_122701 ]
Benjamin Bentmann commented on SUREFIRE-446: -------------------------------------------- bq. This certainly explains how Benjamin found this bug... ;-) What should I say, I am just evil minded ;-) bq. it isn't necessarily safe to do so The same is true with running tests in parallel. If your test suite contains non-thread-safe method calls, well, multi-threaded tests are a bad idea, too. So, is Surefire going to drop its parameter "parallel" because an incompotent user could make the tests errorneously fail? I wouldn't feel quite comfortable with a build tool that restricts me from doing something just because it *might* not work although - for a special use-case - it *will* work. bq. Short of that, it's hard to see how we can hack it into Surefire on top of the framework that's already in place. Naively spoken, I would expect that forkMode=always behaves as if {{TestNGDirectoryTestSuite}} found only a single test class. > Surefire fails to capture TestNG results when forkMode=always > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SUREFIRE-446 > URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-446 > Project: Maven Surefire > Issue Type: Bug > Components: process forking > Affects Versions: 2.4 > Environment: Maven 2.0.8, JDK 1.5.0_12, WinXP > Reporter: Benjamin Bentmann > Fix For: 2.x > > Attachments: testng-fork-mode-it.patch > > > The interplay between {{surefire.Surefire}} and > {{testng.TestNGDirectoryTestSuite}} does not properly notify the > ReportManager such that it reports 0 executed tests after the end of the day. > IT to reproduce attached. > Also confirmed against 2.5-SNAPSHOT. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira