I poked around a little and didn't find any joy. But the *really clumsy* way of doing this would be to add the @Ignore annotation to any test in the class that you didn't want to run, then just run the class.
Or, equivalently, comment out the @Test annotation. I'd prefer adding the @Ignore though so there's be some chance of noticing if it was inadvertently checked in. FWIW Erick On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jason Rutherglen < jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've never tried to learn a command-line invocation of a test > > case for a single test method, I've always just used the IDE > > to run individual methods.... > > Right, I've been doing bunches of Solr dev which for me only works > from the command line... I'm open to suggestions though! > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Erick Erickson > <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You can use Junit4 whenever you want right now. Just derive from > > LuceneTestCaseJ4 rather than LuceneTestCase. And annotate > > each test with @Test and you should be fine. > > Junit4 does allow you to mix-n-match 3/4 tests > > *on a whole class basis*. That is, all of the tests in a class must > > be either 3-style deriving from TestCase and named appropriately) > > or 4-style (annotated, with whatever Junit4 features you'd like). > > The consensus seems to be that converting old tests to > > Junit4 just to get them all using Junit4 isn't a good use > > of time, and at least introduces the possibility that it would > > mess things up. Upgrading old tests to Junit4 to improve > > them, especially to speed them up (@BeforeClass and @ > > AfterClass can help) *is* a good use of time. > > I might convert an old-style test case if I was > > working in it, but that's probably a personal preference. > > I've never tried to learn a command-line invocation of a test > > case for a single test method, I've always just used the IDE > > to run individual methods.... > > Erick > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Jason Rutherglen > > <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Lets go to JUnit 4 if possible... > >> > >> Does it provide method level testing? (i.e. one doesn't need to > >> execute every test method just to check the results of one method) > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Ok this seems a discussion related to JUnit 4, so I'll port what I've > >> > said > >> > about it from the other thread (doing the code cleanup): > >> > > >> > {quote} > >> > Erik, I'm totally with you on JUnit 4. I think the @Test annotation is > >> > really not a big deal (it's actually very easy to migrate all the > >> > current > >> > tests to JUnit 4 with the added import using some script. Even > manually > >> > it > >> > shouldn't be such a big deal. > >> > > >> > @Ignore is a perfect other advantage of JUnit4. I've found some tests > >> > which > >> > were prefixed with _, i.e. _testXYZ just to disable them. Nobody knows > >> > about > >> > them until he looks at the code (and pays attention). @Ignore would > have > >> > been better. > >> > > >> > And there are lots of other advantages, like the @Before and @After > (not > >> > only class). Another problem I've found in the tests is that not all > >> > extended LuceneTestCase, and usually their setUp and tearDown > >> > implementations were wrong - not calling super first/last. When I > moved > >> > them > >> > to extend LuceneTestCase they broke (I fixed them, don't worry). > >> > However, > >> > that could never happen if the super's methods were tagged w/ > >> > @Before/After, > >> > because JUnit would take care running them before/after their > >> > sub-classes' > >> > @Before/After. So that's another win for JUnit4. > >> > > >> > And of course the @Before/AfterClass are really great ! > >> > {quote} > >> > > >> > I think the @Before/After annotations can be a real win for our tests. > >> > > >> > My two cents, > >> > Shai > >> > > >> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Erick Erickson > >> > <erickerick...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Well, "Things got busy (tm)". Uwe's point if valid; unless there's > >> >> demonstrable gain, moving things to Junit4 "just for fun" is wasted > >> >> motion, > >> >> indeed dangerous. I was focusing on LocalizedTestCase to understand > the > >> >> place of runBare etc. in the scheme of things since when I created > >> >> LuceneTestCaseJ4 that was something I wanted to figure out to make it > a > >> >> replacement for LuceneTestCase. > >> >> > >> >> I can't point to a compelling reason to shake up the code, the only > >> >> improvement it would have is having a demonstration of using the > Junit4 > >> >> @RunWith annotation for future reference. > >> >> > >> >> So, I've no compelling reason to push that patch forward. If y'all > >> >> think > >> >> it's worth it I'll be happy to crank that patch back up again, it'll > >> >> take a > >> >> few days though. It does affect a several files, and if the main > value > >> >> here > >> >> is an exemplar of the @RunWith annotation, perhaps there's a better > >> >> place to > >> >> put that in. > >> >> > >> >> Erick > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> LocalizedTestCase called runBare in LuceneTestCase which reported > the > >> >>>> seed value if an exception was thrown. I couldn't find a good way > to > >> >>>> access > >> >>>> runBare or analogs in Junit4, but the interceptor pattern worked as > >> >>>> well. > >> >>>> The interceptor is called by the Junit framework on test events, so > >> >>>> there > >> >>>> aren't references to it in the Lucene test code. There are other > >> >>>> places that > >> >>>> call runBare, so I assumed that if anyone wanted to use Junit4 with > >> >>>> those > >> >>>> classes it would be a good thing to allow. > >> >>> > >> >>> I didn't forget about your patch Erick, in my opinion there is > nothing > >> >>> wrong with it. I hope its not discouraging you, the problem is a few > >> >>> of us > >> >>> have spent countless hours trying to debug this hard-to-reproduce > Thai > >> >>> test > >> >>> failure problem. > >> >>> > >> >>> It failed in the existing tests, too, with Junit 3 on hudson (one > >> >>> time!). > >> >>> At this point, i start to wonder if it could be related to stuff > like > >> >>> this: > >> >>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6683975 > >> >>> > >> >>> I don't think we should let this stop progress with the tests, if > you > >> >>> think we should move LocalizedTestCase to junit 4 lets do it. > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Robert Muir > >> >>> rcm...@gmail.com > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >