Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Better parameterised tests

Expand Messages
  • foo_bar_baz_qux
    I was going to start a new thread, but I ll plug in here, to keep the discussion in one place. I have had the same problem, different solution and the patch is
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I was going to start a new thread, but I'll plug in here, to keep the discussion in one place.

      I have had the same problem, different solution and the patch is in github: https://github.com/KentBeck/junit/pull/145

      Florian has same problem, different approach: https://github.com/KentBeck/junit/pull/358

      May the Powers That Be realize that this is a very annoying aspect of JUnit (forcing us to count lines when a test fails) and consider including any of these patches in the JUnit tree.

      Best regards,
      Dimitar
    • p.lipinski
      Actually this thread wasn t related to the standard JUnit Parameterized runner, which is a failure. It was related to JUnitParams runner
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 9, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Actually this thread wasn't related to the standard JUnit Parameterized runner, which is a failure. It was related to JUnitParams runner (http://code.google.com/p/junitparams) which BTW. has been released today in the new version.
        Not only does JUnitParams solve the issue stated in the github comments you posted, but many others as well... You're welcome to use it ;-)

        Pawel

        --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, "foo_bar_baz_qux" <dimitar.dimitrov@...> wrote:
        >
        > I was going to start a new thread, but I'll plug in here, to keep the discussion in one place.
        >
        > I have had the same problem, different solution and the patch is in github: https://github.com/KentBeck/junit/pull/145
        >
        > Florian has same problem, different approach: https://github.com/KentBeck/junit/pull/358
        >
        > May the Powers That Be realize that this is a very annoying aspect of JUnit (forcing us to count lines when a test fails) and consider including any of these patches in the JUnit tree.
        >
        > Best regards,
        > Dimitar
        >
      • foo_bar_baz_qux
        That is great, besides the fact that I will need to explain my team members and the procurement department why am I dragging another library in the project,
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 23, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          That is great, besides the fact that I will need to explain my team members and the procurement department why am I dragging another library in the project, who will support it and what will happen when the few committers move on to the next big thing.

          We need what is in the package to work - I took the time to implement a solution, but apparently JUnit has turned into a personal playground for a chosen few who are not interested in mundane day to day scenarios.

          These days I am slowly building support to migrate all project's tests to TestNG.


          --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, "p.lipinski" <p.lipinski@...> wrote:
          >
          > Actually this thread wasn't related to the standard JUnit Parameterized runner, which is a failure. It was related to JUnitParams runner (http://code.google.com/p/junitparams) which BTW. has been released today in the new version.
          > Not only does JUnitParams solve the issue stated in the github comments you posted, but many others as well... You're welcome to use it ;-)
          >
          > Pawel
          >
        • David Saff
          Dimitar, Patch processing has been slow on JUnit, as I shared with the list that my paid work and family commitments have been taking up more of my time over
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 28, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Dimitar,

            Patch processing has been slow on JUnit, as I shared with the list
            that my paid work and family commitments have been taking up more of
            my time over the last few months than before. I hope you do find a
            solution that works for you, whether it involves the overhead of
            freely reusing others' efforts or of writing your own.

            David Saff

            On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:08 AM, foo_bar_baz_qux
            <dimitar.dimitrov@...> wrote:
            > That is great, besides the fact that I will need to explain my team members and the procurement department why am I dragging another library in the project, who will support it and what will happen when the few committers move on to the next big thing.
            >
            > We need what is in the package to work - I took the time to implement a solution, but apparently JUnit has turned into a personal playground for a chosen few who are not interested in mundane day to day scenarios.
            >
            > These days I am slowly building support to migrate all project's tests to TestNG.
            >
            >
            > --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, "p.lipinski" <p.lipinski@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> Actually this thread wasn't related to the standard JUnit Parameterized runner, which is a failure. It was related to JUnitParams runner (http://code.google.com/p/junitparams) which BTW. has been released today in the new version.
            >> Not only does JUnitParams solve the issue stated in the github comments you posted, but many others as well... You're welcome to use it ;-)
            >>
            >> Pawel
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.