[
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=353239#comment-353239
]
Gili commented on SUREFIRE-749:
-------------------------------
@Andreas,
You didn't explain how one would implement this across the board for *both*
JUnit and TestNG, and how one would subsequently integrate with Surefire.
To clarify: I am looking for Surefire to provide a consist isolation interface
(using forking if you prefer) on a per-method basis. By your admission Surefire
does not yet support this, so why close this as WON'T FIX? Please consider
renaming the title to "Ability to fork JVM per method" and reopening the issue.
> Parallel methods should run in separate classloaders
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SUREFIRE-749
> URL: https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-749
> Project: Maven Surefire
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Junit 4.7+ (parallel) support
> Affects Versions: 2.8.1
> Reporter: Gili
> Assignee: Kristian Rosenvold
>
> When running in parallel-method or parallel-both mode, each @Test should run
> in its own ClassLoader. I'm running into a lot of problems involving the use
> of static variables in 3rd-party libraries. Here are two examples:
> 1. slf4j: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176
> 2. guice: http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=635
> I believe running in isolated ClassLoaders would fix both problems and it
> makes a lot of sense from a test isolation point of view so we should do it
> anyway.
> I believe Surefire's forkMode is defined in terms of isolated JVMs instead of
> ClassLoaders. Furthermore, it only seems to support per-Class isolation
> instead of per-@Test isolation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.6#6162)
