Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Juni5 not supporting parametric tests #302

Open
lausdahl opened this issue Jul 20, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Juni5 not supporting parametric tests #302

lausdahl opened this issue Jul 20, 2021 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
maestrov2 Will be considered for MaestroV2 question

Comments

@lausdahl
Copy link
Contributor

Why did we switch to Junit 5 when it doesn't support the test structure we have with parametric tests?

junit-team/junit5#990

It is pretty difficult to figure out what goes wrong when no information is given about which test fails.

Here is an example:

[ERROR] Tests run: 9, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 62.605 s <<< FAILURE! - in org.intocps.maestro.FullSpecCppTest
[ERROR] org.intocps.maestro.FullSpecCppTest.test(String, File)[1]  Time elapsed: 0.817 s  <<< FAILURE!
org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: The sha1 of the generated spec and the sim program did not match. ==> expected: <true> but was: <false>
	at org.intocps.maestro.FullSpecCppTest.postProcessSpec(FullSpecCppTest.java:107)

its a version of the FullSpecTest test so it has 9 sub tests. so while it can run them it is not useful if it doesn't show information about which ones fails.

@lausdahl lausdahl added question maestrov2 Will be considered for MaestroV2 labels Jul 20, 2021
@CThuleHansen
Copy link
Contributor

CThuleHansen commented Aug 2, 2021

Yes that sucks.
We were unaware of this... But apparently it is surefire that seems to be behind, not junit5
Should work with surefire 3.0.0-M5 though?!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
maestrov2 Will be considered for MaestroV2 question
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants
@lausdahl @CThuleHansen and others