From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-07-09 19:05:11
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 08:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dsaff You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. >Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-07-13 21:54:11
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 05:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dasblinkenlight You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 14:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 12:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-07-18 17:25:18
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 08:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anshnd You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 13:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 17:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-08-03 09:16:45
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 12:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jeremy_carroll You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 17:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 21:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 19:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-08-03 09:20:02
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 12:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jeremy_carroll You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 17:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 21:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 19:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2007-08-20 21:34:31
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 05:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by qualidafial You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 14:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 02:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 02:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 10:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 14:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 12:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-09-04 21:04:57
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 12:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 21:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 21:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 17:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 21:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 19:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-10-13 18:15:49
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 08:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anshnd You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 14:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 17:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 17:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 13:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 17:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-10-14 19:09:29
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 08:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anshnd You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 15:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 14:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 17:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 17:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 13:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 17:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2008-11-04 22:44:21
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 14:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kaipe You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Date: 2008-11-04 23:44 Message: I have implemented an alternative solution to this: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2222651&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 21:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 20:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 23:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 23:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 11:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 11:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 19:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 23:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 21:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-05 11:42:31
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 12:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sanzinger You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stefan Anzinger (sanzinger) Date: 2009-04-05 11:42 Message: Hi all, is there a plan to integrate such functionality in the next release. I did some search in the internet, a lot people facing the same problem. (See links below) Kind Regards Stefan https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4c9260f80809101330p1b822382v34f427ae73f8aafb%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=junit-devel https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/message/21425 http://contrapunctus.net/index.php/2006/parameterized-tests-in-junit-4 http://www.junit.org/node/506 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/650894/change-test-name-of-parameterized-tests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Date: 2008-11-04 22:44 Message: I have implemented an alternative solution to this: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2222651&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 19:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 18:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 21:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 21:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 17:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 21:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 19:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-06 14:00:53
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 08:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dsaff You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-04-06 10:00 Message: Unfortunately, this is unlikely to make the cut for the 4.6 release, but I hope to integrate early in the 4.7 branch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stefan Anzinger (sanzinger) Date: 2009-04-05 07:42 Message: Hi all, is there a plan to integrate such functionality in the next release. I did some search in the internet, a lot people facing the same problem. (See links below) Kind Regards Stefan https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4c9260f80809101330p1b822382v34f427ae73f8aafb%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=junit-devel https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/message/21425 http://contrapunctus.net/index.php/2006/parameterized-tests-in-junit-4 http://www.junit.org/node/506 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/650894/change-test-name-of-parameterized-tests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Date: 2008-11-04 17:44 Message: I have implemented an alternative solution to this: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2222651&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 15:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 14:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 17:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 17:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 13:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 17:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-06-03 08:43:17
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 12:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-06-03 08:43 Message: <a href="<http://groups.google.com/group/buy-best-generic-valium>">buy valium</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-04-06 14:00 Message: Unfortunately, this is unlikely to make the cut for the 4.6 release, but I hope to integrate early in the 4.7 branch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stefan Anzinger (sanzinger) Date: 2009-04-05 11:42 Message: Hi all, is there a plan to integrate such functionality in the next release. I did some search in the internet, a lot people facing the same problem. (See links below) Kind Regards Stefan https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4c9260f80809101330p1b822382v34f427ae73f8aafb%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=junit-devel https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/message/21425 http://contrapunctus.net/index.php/2006/parameterized-tests-in-junit-4 http://www.junit.org/node/506 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/650894/change-test-name-of-parameterized-tests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Date: 2008-11-04 22:44 Message: I have implemented an alternative solution to this: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2222651&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 19:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 18:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 21:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 21:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 17:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 21:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 19:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-11-16 17:52:54
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 08:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dsaff You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None >Status: Pending Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-11-16 12:52 Message: This tracker is being shut down. Please move this item to http://github.com/KentBeck/junit/issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-06-03 04:43 Message: <a href="<http://groups.google.com/group/buy-best-generic-valium>">buy valium</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-04-06 10:00 Message: Unfortunately, this is unlikely to make the cut for the 4.6 release, but I hope to integrate early in the 4.7 branch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stefan Anzinger (sanzinger) Date: 2009-04-05 07:42 Message: Hi all, is there a plan to integrate such functionality in the next release. I did some search in the internet, a lot people facing the same problem. (See links below) Kind Regards Stefan https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4c9260f80809101330p1b822382v34f427ae73f8aafb%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=junit-devel https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/message/21425 http://contrapunctus.net/index.php/2006/parameterized-tests-in-junit-4 http://www.junit.org/node/506 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/650894/change-test-name-of-parameterized-tests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Date: 2008-11-04 17:44 Message: I have implemented an alternative solution to this: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2222651&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 15:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 14:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 17:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 17:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 13:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 17:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-11-16 18:57:44
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 08:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by anshnd You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Pending Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2009-11-16 13:57 Message: Please vote at http://github.com/KentBeck/junit/issues/#issue/44 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-11-16 12:52 Message: This tracker is being shut down. Please move this item to http://github.com/KentBeck/junit/issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-06-03 04:43 Message: <a href="<http://groups.google.com/group/buy-best-generic-valium>">buy valium</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-04-06 10:00 Message: Unfortunately, this is unlikely to make the cut for the 4.6 release, but I hope to integrate early in the 4.7 branch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stefan Anzinger (sanzinger) Date: 2009-04-05 07:42 Message: Hi all, is there a plan to integrate such functionality in the next release. I did some search in the internet, a lot people facing the same problem. (See links below) Kind Regards Stefan https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4c9260f80809101330p1b822382v34f427ae73f8aafb%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=junit-devel https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/message/21425 http://contrapunctus.net/index.php/2006/parameterized-tests-in-junit-4 http://www.junit.org/node/506 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/650894/change-test-name-of-parameterized-tests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Date: 2008-11-04 17:44 Message: I have implemented an alternative solution to this: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2222651&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 15:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 14:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 17:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 17:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 05:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 13:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 17:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 15:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:27
|
Feature Requests item #1742040, was opened at 2007-06-23 12:51 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Parameterized runner should include data in test names Initial Comment: Right now the test names are determined as follows in Parameterized: @Override protected String getName() { return String.format("[%s]", fParameterSetNumber); } @Override protected String testName(final Method method) { return String.format("%s[%s]", method.getName(), fParameterSetNumber); } It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. Maybe Parameterized can be parameterized to contain the format for names? I can submit a patch if needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: SourceForge Robot (sf-robot) Date: 2009-12-01 02:20 Message: This Tracker item was closed automatically by the system. It was previously set to a Pending status, and the original submitter did not respond within 14 days (the time period specified by the administrator of this Tracker). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2009-11-16 18:57 Message: Please vote at http://github.com/KentBeck/junit/issues/#issue/44 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-11-16 17:52 Message: This tracker is being shut down. Please move this item to http://github.com/KentBeck/junit/issues ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-06-03 08:43 Message: <a href="<http://groups.google.com/group/buy-best-generic-valium>">buy valium</a> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2009-04-06 14:00 Message: Unfortunately, this is unlikely to make the cut for the 4.6 release, but I hope to integrate early in the 4.7 branch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Stefan Anzinger (sanzinger) Date: 2009-04-05 11:42 Message: Hi all, is there a plan to integrate such functionality in the next release. I did some search in the internet, a lot people facing the same problem. (See links below) Kind Regards Stefan https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=4c9260f80809101330p1b822382v34f427ae73f8aafb%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=junit-devel https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/message/21425 http://contrapunctus.net/index.php/2006/parameterized-tests-in-junit-4 http://www.junit.org/node/506 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/650894/change-test-name-of-parameterized-tests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Date: 2008-11-04 22:44 Message: I have implemented an alternative solution to this: https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2222651&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-14 19:09 Message: committing the patch. Hopefully this can be approved, applied and closed? File Added: Parameterized.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2008-10-13 18:15 Message: I'm submitting a modified Parameterized.java with updated javadoc that gets the name by calling a public, static (!) method annotated by @TestName (new) and accepting the same arguments as the constructor. The method had to be static because the name is needed before the tests are instantiated. File Added: Parameterized.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2008-09-04 21:04 Message: Logged In: NO I agree that this definitely could be better, but would like to suggest a different approach: What if instead the ParameterizedRunner called .toString() on the newly allocated TestObject (Since the whole point of the parameterized test is to create one object per parameter set). This way programmers could have full control over the appearance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Hall (qualidafial) Date: 2007-08-20 21:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=168544 Originator: NO +1 for @TestName ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO This duplicates: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1630834&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeremy Carroll (jeremy_carroll) Date: 2007-08-03 09:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=482628 Originator: NO I would like this feature too. Using the first arg, while limiting, is better than no solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Anli Shundi (anshnd) Date: 2007-07-18 17:25 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=180255 Originator: YES Calling @TestName is good idea; what about when there's more than one test though? It makes sense to combine the value of TestName with the methodName (orginal test value). Also, a name like @ParameterizedTestname would be more suitable since this annotation wouldn't apply to normal @Test-s. Since we're at Parameterized. Can someone with write permission please commit this diff for a meaningful error message? RCS file: /cvsroot/junit/junit/src/org/junit/runners/Parameterized.java,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -w -b -r1.5 Parameterized.java 87c87 < Assert.assertEquals(1, constructors.length); --- > Assert.assertEquals("Only one connstructor is allowed for tests run by Parameterized", 1, constructors.length); ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: dasblinkenlight (dasblinkenlight) Date: 2007-07-13 21:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1827208 Originator: NO > It would help of the value of the first parameter was included in the name. I think that using the first parameter (A) is too limiting because it may not be a meaningful string, and (B) is not backward-compatible, because users will see "junk" names when their first argument is a class that does not override Object#toString. A better solution would be to have the TestClassRunnerForParameters call the method with @TestName annotation in the test class, if one is provided, and use the [%s] name by default. This way the users will have full control over the generation of test names, and the results will be 100% backward-compatible because @TestName annotation class does not exist yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-07-09 19:05 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Moved to feature requests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1742040&group_id=15278 |