Re: Welcome Aditya Sharma as new PMC member
Many congratulations, Aditya!! -- Kind Regards, Ashish Vijaywargiya Vice President of Operations *HotWax Systems* *Enterprise open source experts* cell: +91-9893479711 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:24 PM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > The OFBiz PMC has invited Aditya Sharma to become member of the committee > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Aditya! > >
Re: Welcome Suraj Khurana as new PMC member
Congratulations Suraj! Kind Regards, Mohammad Kathawala Senior Technical Consultant *HotWax Systems* *Enterprise open source experts* cell: +91-7772858789 office: 0731-409-3684 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:22 PM Jacques Le Roux wrote: > The OFBiz PMC has invited Suraj Khurana to become member of the committee > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Suraj! > >
Re: Welcome Aditya Sharma as new PMC member
Congratulations Aditya! Kind Regards, Mohammad Kathawala Senior Technical Consultant *HotWax Systems* *Enterprise open source experts* cell: +91-7772858789 office: 0731-409-3684 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 10:24 PM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > The OFBiz PMC has invited Aditya Sharma to become member of the committee > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Aditya! > >
Re: Welcome Aditya Sharma as new PMC member
Many Many Congratulations Aditya !! Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit ofbiz.apache.org On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:47 AM Pritam Kute wrote: > Congratulations Aditya. > > Kind Regards, > -- > Pritam Kute > Technical Consultant > *HotWax Systems* > *Enterprise open source experts* > cell: +91 95793 66013 > http://www.hotwaxsystems.com > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 11:14 PM Pawan Verma wrote: > > > Many congratulations Aditya! > > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020, 10:24 PM Jacques Le Roux < > > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The OFBiz PMC has invited Aditya Sharma to become member of the > committee > > > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > > > > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Aditya! > > > > > > > > >
Re: Welcome Suraj Khurana as new PMC member
Many congratulations, Suraj!! -- Kind Regards, Ashish Vijaywargiya Vice President of Operations *HotWax Systems* *Enterprise open source experts* cell: +91-9893479711 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:22 PM Jacques Le Roux wrote: > The OFBiz PMC has invited Suraj Khurana to become member of the committee > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Suraj! > >
Re: Welcome Suraj Khurana as new PMC member
Many Many Congratulations Suraj!! Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit ofbiz.apache.org On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:45 AM Pritam Kute wrote: > Congratulations Suraj > > Kind Regards, > -- > Pritam Kute > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:53 PM Pawan Verma wrote: > > > Many congratulations Suraj! > > -- > > Thanks & Regards > > Pawan Verma > > ofbiz.apache.org > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:22 PM Jacques Le Roux < > > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The OFBiz PMC has invited Suraj Khurana to become member of the > committee > > > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > > > > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Suraj! > > > > > > > > >
Re: JUnit 5?
Hi All
OFBiz integration tests are based on classes extending the TestCase class.
Should we not allow for a hybrid way of writing integration test cases
based on classes that do not extend TestCase while also allowing old ways
(extending TestCase and test methods starting with test) of writing test
cases?
Is there any particular reason why we are still using TestCase class?
Best
Girish
On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 1:44 PM Jacques Le Roux
wrote:
> Thanks Eugen,
>
> That's quite interesting, could you please put your comment in the Jira?
>
> TIA
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 05/07/2020 à 09:36, Eugen Stan a écrit :
> > Hello Jacques,
> >
> > I think it makes sense to make the transition.
> >
> > In James we do have it ongoing.
> >
> > Junit5 people have documented the upgrade process and you can make it
> > gradually and have both.
> >
> > Use ` git grep org.junit.Test | wc -l `to count the non-migrated tests.
> >
> > This is what we have based on the migration samples
> > https://github.com/junit-team/junit5-samples#gradle-migration-
> >
> >
> https://github.com/junit-team/junit5-samples/blob/main/junit5-migration-gradle/build.gradle
> >
> >
> > https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#migrating-from-junit4
> >
> >
> >
> > testImplementation 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api:5.5.1'
> > testImplementation 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-params:5.5.1'
> > testRuntimeOnly 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine:5.5.1'
> > testCompileOnly 'junit:junit:4.13'
> > testRuntimeOnly 'org.junit.vintage:junit-vintage-engine:5.5.1'
> > }
> >
> > test {
> > useJUnitPlatform()
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > La 05.07.2020 10:01, Jacques Le Roux a scris:
> >> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11870 for that
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >> Le 04/09/2018 à 09:15, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I stumbled upon this tweet
> >>>
> >>> https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243
> >>>
> >>> Had a quick look at
> >>>
> >>> https://junit.org/junit5/docs/5.3.0/release-notes/
> >>>
> >>> https://www.baeldung.com/junit-5-migration
> >>>
> >>> I did not rememberf, so searched if we discussed moving from JUnit 4
> >>> to JUnit 5, but did not find anything.
> >>>
> >>> Did we discuss it, if so what were the conclusions? If not, should we
> >>> not discuss it?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> >>>
> https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243witter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>>
>
Re: Welcome Aditya Sharma as new PMC member
Congratulations Aditya. Kind Regards, -- Pritam Kute Technical Consultant *HotWax Systems* *Enterprise open source experts* cell: +91 95793 66013 http://www.hotwaxsystems.com On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 11:14 PM Pawan Verma wrote: > Many congratulations Aditya! > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020, 10:24 PM Jacques Le Roux < > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > wrote: > > > The OFBiz PMC has invited Aditya Sharma to become member of the committee > > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Aditya! > > > > >
Re: Welcome Suraj Khurana as new PMC member
Congratulations Suraj Kind Regards, -- Pritam Kute On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:53 PM Pawan Verma wrote: > Many congratulations Suraj! > -- > Thanks & Regards > Pawan Verma > ofbiz.apache.org > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:22 PM Jacques Le Roux < > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > wrote: > > > The OFBiz PMC has invited Suraj Khurana to become member of the committee > > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Suraj! > > > > >
Re: Welcome Aditya Sharma as new PMC member
Many congratulations Aditya! On Sun, Jul 5, 2020, 10:24 PM Jacques Le Roux wrote: > The OFBiz PMC has invited Aditya Sharma to become member of the committee > and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. > > On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Aditya! > >
Welcome Aditya Sharma as new PMC member
The OFBiz PMC has invited Aditya Sharma to become member of the committee and we are glad to announce that he has accepted the nomination. On behalf of the OFBiz PMC, welcome on board Aditya!
Error.ftl everywhere
Hi, While working on OFBIZ-11840 I thought about the solution I used for "[CVE-2020-1943] Apache OFBiz XSS Vulnerability" So I tried that: diff --git framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/common-controller.xml framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/common-controller.xml index e6f9394cd4..9291cdbece 100644 --- framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/common-controller.xml +++ framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/common-controller.xml @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ under the License. - + diff --git framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/handlers-controller.xml framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/handlers-controller.xml index be21b19fd9..1622d10ead 100644 --- framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/handlers-controller.xml +++ framework/common/webcommon/WEB-INF/handlers-controller.xml @@ -42,4 +42,5 @@ under the License. + It does not fix the OFBIZ-11840 issue but it works. I mean it correctly replaces error.jsp by error.ftl. Few questions: 1. Why having the ftl handlers only in webtools controller? BTW it makes the XSD documentation awkward because it speaks about the ftl handlers being in handlers-controller.xml 2. Why not using error.ftl in common-controller.xml instead of error.jsp? 3. Same question for plugins. I believe we could change all that and definitely get rid of error.jsp (error.ftl is already in all supported releases branches) What do you think? Jacques
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 - Second Attempt
Thanks Girish, A Git-bash quirk in Windows I guess, OK with me also in my Ubuntu VM +1 to release Jacques Le 05/07/2020 à 14:38, Girish Vasmatkar a écrit : Looks fine at my end - girish$ ./verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 87FC62B2 8005BE59 FBB5AA69 6F0317C1 72273F02 EB39DD82 9738761C 694D644B F004C3A6 12E8DB41 512C726A 4F5E991F D80A6A84 4AADE640 7B726DC1 8E4182A8 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 87FC62B2 8005BE59 FBB5AA69 6F0317C1 72273F02 EB39DD82 9738761C 694D644B F004C3A6 12E8DB41 512C726A 4F5E991F D80A6A84 4AADE640 7B726DC1 8E4182A8 sha checksum OK GPG verification output gpg: Signature made Sun Jul 5 13:38:45 2020 IST gpg:using RSA key 7A580908847AF9E0 gpg: Good signature from "Jacopo Cappellato (CODE SIGNING KEY) < jaco...@apache.org>" [unknown] gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 3545 C5E3 1CC2 D029 B2CC AD06 7A58 0908 847A F9E0 Best, Girish On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:24 PM Jacques Le Roux wrote: Hi Jacopo, Something is wrong, I get that (dowloaded twice, except the package which opens normally): $ ./verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 87FC62B2 8005BE59 FBB5AA69 6F0317C1 72273F02 EB39DD82 9738761C 694D644B F004C3A6 12E8DB41 512C726A 4F5E991F D80A6A84 4AADE640 7B726DC1 8E4182A8 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 74F79D42 2746A409 9C0F2E0D 5F96C070 78C73D7B 4C681452 EB974F18 33E2E391 3E1C7D1F 2F0E8A44 C18AC8FF A9F86094 4C9F5D4D 5DDA3AB9 E2DC2057 CA0F2E33 sha sums mismatch! GPG verification output gpg: Signature made Fri Jul 3 16:04:40 2020 gpg:using RSA key 7A580908847AF9E0 gpg: BAD signature from "Jacopo Cappellato (CODE SIGNING KEY) < jaco...@apache.org>" Could it be on my side? Anyone reproduce? Jacques Le 05/07/2020 à 10:23, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : This is the vote thread (second attempt) to publish a new bug fix release from the "release17.12" branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 17.12.04", will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512: checksum file Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 [ -1] do not release This vote will be open for 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 - Second Attempt
Looks fine at my end - girish$ ./verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 87FC62B2 8005BE59 FBB5AA69 6F0317C1 72273F02 EB39DD82 9738761C 694D644B F004C3A6 12E8DB41 512C726A 4F5E991F D80A6A84 4AADE640 7B726DC1 8E4182A8 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 87FC62B2 8005BE59 FBB5AA69 6F0317C1 72273F02 EB39DD82 9738761C 694D644B F004C3A6 12E8DB41 512C726A 4F5E991F D80A6A84 4AADE640 7B726DC1 8E4182A8 sha checksum OK GPG verification output gpg: Signature made Sun Jul 5 13:38:45 2020 IST gpg:using RSA key 7A580908847AF9E0 gpg: Good signature from "Jacopo Cappellato (CODE SIGNING KEY) < jaco...@apache.org>" [unknown] gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 3545 C5E3 1CC2 D029 B2CC AD06 7A58 0908 847A F9E0 Best, Girish On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 3:24 PM Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > Something is wrong, I get that (dowloaded twice, except the package which > opens normally): > > $ ./verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip > sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip > Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512 > apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 87FC62B2 8005BE59 FBB5AA69 6F0317C1 72273F02 > EB39DD82 9738761C 694D644B F004C3A6 12E8DB41 512C726A 4F5E991F D80A6A84 > 4AADE640 7B726DC1 8E4182A8 > apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 74F79D42 2746A409 9C0F2E0D 5F96C070 78C73D7B > 4C681452 EB974F18 33E2E391 3E1C7D1F 2F0E8A44 C18AC8FF A9F86094 4C9F5D4D > 5DDA3AB9 E2DC2057 CA0F2E33 > sha sums mismatch! > > GPG verification output > gpg: Signature made Fri Jul 3 16:04:40 2020 > gpg:using RSA key 7A580908847AF9E0 > gpg: BAD signature from "Jacopo Cappellato (CODE SIGNING KEY) < > jaco...@apache.org>" > > Could it be on my side? Anyone reproduce? > > Jacques > > Le 05/07/2020 à 10:23, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : > > This is the vote thread (second attempt) to publish a new bug fix release > > from the "release17.12" branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz > 17.12.04", > > will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. > > > > The release files can be downloaded from here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ > > and are: > > * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip > > * KEYS: text file with keys > > * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.asc: the detached signature file > > * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512: checksum file > > > > Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for > instructions > > on testing the signatures see > http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). > > > > Vote: > > [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 > > [ -1] do not release > > > > This vote will be open for 5 days. > > > > For more details about this process please read > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > >
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 - Second Attempt
Hi Jacopo, Something is wrong, I get that (dowloaded twice, except the package which opens normally): $ ./verify-ofbiz-release.sh apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip sha check of file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip Using sha file: apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 87FC62B2 8005BE59 FBB5AA69 6F0317C1 72273F02 EB39DD82 9738761C 694D644B F004C3A6 12E8DB41 512C726A 4F5E991F D80A6A84 4AADE640 7B726DC1 8E4182A8 apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip: 74F79D42 2746A409 9C0F2E0D 5F96C070 78C73D7B 4C681452 EB974F18 33E2E391 3E1C7D1F 2F0E8A44 C18AC8FF A9F86094 4C9F5D4D 5DDA3AB9 E2DC2057 CA0F2E33 sha sums mismatch! GPG verification output gpg: Signature made Fri Jul 3 16:04:40 2020 gpg: using RSA key 7A580908847AF9E0 gpg: BAD signature from "Jacopo Cappellato (CODE SIGNING KEY) " Could it be on my side? Anyone reproduce? Jacques Le 05/07/2020 à 10:23, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : This is the vote thread (second attempt) to publish a new bug fix release from the "release17.12" branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 17.12.04", will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512: checksum file Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 [ -1] do not release This vote will be open for 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
[VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 - Second Attempt
This is the vote thread (second attempt) to publish a new bug fix release from the "release17.12" branch. This new release, "Apache OFBiz 17.12.04", will supersede all the previous releases from the same branch. The release files can be downloaded from here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ofbiz/ and are: * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip * KEYS: text file with keys * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.asc: the detached signature file * apache-ofbiz-17.12.04.zip.sha512: checksum file Please download and test the zip file and its signatures (for instructions on testing the signatures see http://www.apache.org/info/verification.html). Vote: [ +1] release as Apache OFBiz 17.12.04 [ -1] do not release This vote will be open for 5 days. For more details about this process please read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Re: JUnit 5?
Thanks Eugen,
That's quite interesting, could you please put your comment in the Jira?
TIA
Jacques
Le 05/07/2020 à 09:36, Eugen Stan a écrit :
Hello Jacques,
I think it makes sense to make the transition.
In James we do have it ongoing.
Junit5 people have documented the upgrade process and you can make it
gradually and have both.
Use ` git grep org.junit.Test | wc -l `to count the non-migrated tests.
This is what we have based on the migration samples
https://github.com/junit-team/junit5-samples#gradle-migration-
https://github.com/junit-team/junit5-samples/blob/main/junit5-migration-gradle/build.gradle
https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#migrating-from-junit4
testImplementation 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api:5.5.1'
testImplementation 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-params:5.5.1'
testRuntimeOnly 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine:5.5.1'
testCompileOnly 'junit:junit:4.13'
testRuntimeOnly 'org.junit.vintage:junit-vintage-engine:5.5.1'
}
test {
useJUnitPlatform()
}
La 05.07.2020 10:01, Jacques Le Roux a scris:
I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11870 for that
Jacques
Le 04/09/2018 à 09:15, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi,
I stumbled upon this tweet
https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243
Had a quick look at
https://junit.org/junit5/docs/5.3.0/release-notes/
https://www.baeldung.com/junit-5-migration
I did not rememberf, so searched if we discussed moving from JUnit 4
to JUnit 5, but did not find anything.
Did we discuss it, if so what were the conclusions? If not, should we
not discuss it?
Thanks
https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243witter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243
Jacques
Re: [VOTE] [RELEASE] Apache OFBiz 17.12.04
Thank you Michael and Jacques for your feedback and fixes. This vote is cancelled, I am going to prepare new release files and start a new vote thread. Jacopo On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:56 AM Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Le 03/07/2020 à 19:31, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : > > I see another issue locally, that exists also on R17 demo: > > > > 2020-07-03 03:10:02,911 |OFBiz-batch-2 |DatabaseUtil > |E| Column [ACCOMMODATION_CLASS_ID] of table [OFBIZ.ACCOMMODATION_CLASS] of > > entity [AccommodationClass] IS NOT a primary key in the database, but IS > a primary key in the entity definition. The primary key for this table > > needs to be re-created or modified to add this column to the primary > key. Note that data may need to be added first as a primary key column > cannot > > have an null values. > > [...] > > 2020-07-03 03:10:03,092 |OFBiz-batch-2 |DatabaseUtil > |E| Column [CITY] of table [OFBIZ.ZIP_SALES_TAX_LOOKUP] of entity > > [ZipSalesTaxLookup] IS NOT a primary key in the database, but IS a > primary key in the entity definition. The primary key for this table needs > to be > > re-created or modified to add this column to the primary key. Note that > data may need to be added first as a primary key column cannot have an null > > values. > > > > This does not exist in trunk, did not check R18. > > > > Weirdly it does not exist in Buildbot either for R17. Even before > Michael's last fix for AJP. Anyway I don't use AJP locally nor does > Buildbot. > > > > And finally it does not prevent the tests to pass. > > This is no longer a problem. I fixed it in OFBIZ-11312. I wrongly removed > a line when backporting by hand in R17 > > I see now no reasons to create a new "Tentative release files for Apache > OFBiz 17.12.04" > > Thanks > > Jacques >
Re: JUnit 5?
Hello Jacques,
I think it makes sense to make the transition.
In James we do have it ongoing.
Junit5 people have documented the upgrade process and you can make it
gradually and have both.
Use ` git grep org.junit.Test | wc -l `to count the non-migrated tests.
This is what we have based on the migration samples
https://github.com/junit-team/junit5-samples#gradle-migration-
https://github.com/junit-team/junit5-samples/blob/main/junit5-migration-gradle/build.gradle
https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#migrating-from-junit4
testImplementation 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api:5.5.1'
testImplementation 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-params:5.5.1'
testRuntimeOnly 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine:5.5.1'
testCompileOnly 'junit:junit:4.13'
testRuntimeOnly 'org.junit.vintage:junit-vintage-engine:5.5.1'
}
test {
useJUnitPlatform()
}
La 05.07.2020 10:01, Jacques Le Roux a scris:
> I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11870 for that
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 04/09/2018 à 09:15, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I stumbled upon this tweet
>>
>> https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243
>>
>> Had a quick look at
>>
>> https://junit.org/junit5/docs/5.3.0/release-notes/
>>
>> https://www.baeldung.com/junit-5-migration
>>
>> I did not rememberf, so searched if we discussed moving from JUnit 4
>> to JUnit 5, but did not find anything.
>>
>> Did we discuss it, if so what were the conclusions? If not, should we
>> not discuss it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> > https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243witter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
--
Eugen Stan
+40720 898 747 / netdava.com
<>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: JUnit 5?
I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11870 for that Jacques Le 04/09/2018 à 09:15, Jacques Le Roux a écrit : Hi, I stumbled upon this tweet https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243 Had a quick look at https://junit.org/junit5/docs/5.3.0/release-notes/ https://www.baeldung.com/junit-5-migration I did not rememberf, so searched if we discussed moving from JUnit 4 to JUnit 5, but did not find anything. Did we discuss it, if so what were the conclusions? If not, should we not discuss it? Thanks https://twitter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243witter.com/junitteam/status/1036707906706698243 Jacques
