Re: Parameterized Tests (was Re: ant git commit: Inline buildfile names, make search easier)

[Gintautas Grigelionis]

IMHO that would mean putting parts of Ant core into ant-legacy.jar

Gintas

2018-05-03 19:03 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :

> Yes, I'm definitely suggesting/hyping JUnit 5. :)
>

Re: Parameterized Tests (was Re: ant git commit: Inline buildfile names, make search easier)

[Matt Sicker]

Yes, I'm definitely suggesting/hyping JUnit 5. :)

On 3 May 2018 at 12:01, Gintautas Grigelionis 
wrote:

> My focus was on maximising the use of JUnit 4 idioms.
> Are you suggesting a switch to JUnit 5 instead?
> Sounds like Ant 1.11 :-)
>
> Gintas
>
> 2018-05-03 17:12 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :
>
> > I've started using JUnit 5 in a personal project and found that it has a
> > lot more useful features for test parameters. For instance, they now
> > support parameterized test methods instead of just the class itself.
> There
> > are also more convenient ways of injecting test data through annotations
> > and such. Plus, JUnit 5 still supports v3 and v4 tests, so it's not a
> mass
> > migration effort, either.
>
> --
> > Matt Sicker 
> >
>



-- 
Matt Sicker 

Re: Parameterized Tests (was Re: ant git commit: Inline buildfile names, make search easier)

[Gintautas Grigelionis]

My focus was on maximising the use of JUnit 4 idioms.
Are you suggesting a switch to JUnit 5 instead?
Sounds like Ant 1.11 :-)

Gintas

2018-05-03 17:12 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :

> I've started using JUnit 5 in a personal project and found that it has a
> lot more useful features for test parameters. For instance, they now
> support parameterized test methods instead of just the class itself. There
> are also more convenient ways of injecting test data through annotations
> and such. Plus, JUnit 5 still supports v3 and v4 tests, so it's not a mass
> migration effort, either.

-- 
> Matt Sicker 
>

Parameterized Tests (was Re: ant git commit: Inline buildfile names, make search easier)

[Stefan Bodewig]

On 2018-04-30, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:

> 2018-04-30 13:13 GMT+00:00 Stefan Bodewig :

>> On 2018-04-30, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>>> the overarching goal, however, is to reduce verbosity, because
>>> verbosity makes it easier to hide mistakes.

>> This is your goal and we should have decided together whether we agree
>> on this goal. The answer seems to be that we don't.

> I get that. What would be the answer if we reduce the scope to
> parameterization of unit tests?

For new tests I'm all for using parameterized test. The same is true
when you add functionality and need to touch the test anyway.

I'm still not sure I understand which benefit you see by retrofitting
tests that have been written before @Parameterized was invented. They do
contain way too many asserts in a single test method, but all of them
pass, so this is somewhat moot as long as neither the test nor the code
under test is touched :-).

This boils down to "make cosmetic changes only when you need to touch
the code anyway", I guess.

Stefan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org