Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng
into some of the 4.1 unit tests?

The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test (as
well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
features:

-) Using assertions : The testng runtime checks for assert errors, so our
reliance on extending base classes becomes much less needed..ie:

assertEquals(foo.getValue(), 1);

turns into

assert foo.getValue() == 1 : "Foo didn't equal 1"; //or just assert
foo.getValue() == 1;


-) Annotations, well I think everyone knows the benefit to this. But the
additionally nice thing here is that your method names don't need to drive
any part about how your tests are run. The setup/teardown logic could go
away for more friendly uses of configuration, the least of which is being
able to say new things like run my method:

 beforeSuite/beforeTestClass/beforeTestMethod/etc..

Also, grouping and "dependsOnMethod" semantics allow a whole new level of
control.

-) Is completely happy to run all junit tests.

-) Supported in the maven2 core by yours truly.

-) We have commit access to it which will give instant gratification to
anyone disliking/wanting some feature. (though I doubt this will come up)

It's not a huge deal for me, it's just something that is nice to have. I
won't add the dependency in unless I get an ok for it as it is impactual on
our daily happiness and I certainly don't want to add something in that will
become an annoyance for anyone.

jesse

Reply via email to