Re: JUNIT 5 migration

2019-05-05 Thread Emmanuel Lécharny

On 05/05/2019 12:30, Stefan Seelmann wrote:

On 5/5/19 9:50 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:

I'm almost done with LDAP API junit 5 migration, with only one burden :
the multithreaded Rule that has to be ported. Junit 5 does not support
@Rule, there is a new mechanism called extensions [1]. I still have to
study it. The other used rule is the one using temporary folder
creation. Atm, I just skipped it and replaced it with a init function
doing the same thing, but that could be improved.

I guess we can remove that rule.


All in all, I'm not sure we will need the junit-addons project, except
if we  decide to create the multithreaded extension and make it
available for other projects.

I guess we can get rid of it.


As a side note, surefire also support running tests in parallel ([2]).
That may be an opportunity to remove all the concurrent annotation from
the tests.

I assume we use the annotation because some tests cannot run in parallel?



AFAICT, yes, some of the schema tests are required to be run one after 
the other.



Otherwise, augmenting the surefire configuration allows us to run the 
tests concurrently, which is good,  and incidentally allowed me to find 
some buggy tests :-)





Re: JUNIT 5 migration

2019-05-05 Thread Stefan Seelmann
On 5/5/19 9:50 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> I'm almost done with LDAP API junit 5 migration, with only one burden :
> the multithreaded Rule that has to be ported. Junit 5 does not support
> @Rule, there is a new mechanism called extensions [1]. I still have to
> study it. The other used rule is the one using temporary folder
> creation. Atm, I just skipped it and replaced it with a init function
> doing the same thing, but that could be improved.

I guess we can remove that rule.

> All in all, I'm not sure we will need the junit-addons project, except
> if we  decide to create the multithreaded extension and make it
> available for other projects.

I guess we can get rid of it.

> As a side note, surefire also support running tests in parallel ([2]).
> That may be an opportunity to remove all the concurrent annotation from
> the tests.

I assume we use the annotation because some tests cannot run in parallel?

Anyway, thanks Emmanuel for doing the migration!

Kind Regards,
Stefan