Menu
▾
▴
junit-trackers — Lots of tracker notifications
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(38) |
Apr
(23) |
May
(16) |
Jun
(6) |
Jul
(49) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(12) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(9) |
Mar
(16) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(20) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(22) |
Aug
(32) |
Sep
(22) |
Oct
(17) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(9) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(15) |
Apr
(51) |
May
(23) |
Jun
(11) |
Jul
(9) |
Aug
(10) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(11) |
Nov
(130) |
Dec
(105) |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:25
|
Feature Requests item #1879218, was opened at 2008-01-24 20:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1879218&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: David Saff (dsaff) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Allow DataPoints to annotate Iterable Initial Comment: See http://david.saff.net/bugs/iterable_data_points.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1879218&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:25
|
Feature Requests item #1807227, was opened at 2007-10-03 23:43 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1807227&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: Roberto Leibman (rleibman) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: @WriteThis annotation Initial Comment: Right now tests fall into the following categories: Passed, Failed, Error and Ignored. There is still one more category that would be useful to have: "Tests to be Written". These are tests that have been identified but have not been written, for some purposes they should be counted as failed, but we also like to count them separately. Tools that generate test skeletons could annotate them with @WriteThis instead of what some of them currently do (fail("Write This")). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-10-15 14:24 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Unfortunately, one annotation cannot extend another. Could you use @Ignore with a tag in the string provided? @Ignore("WRITE THIS: Should send mail to boss")... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Roberto Leibman (rleibman) Date: 2007-10-05 15:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=232067 Originator: YES Right now I'm using the @Ignore annotation in this capacity. But I would like to have the flexibility to use @Ignore to ignore temporarily tests that I know may fail instead of using it to mark tests that are not written. Can an annotation extend another? If so, maybe it would be as simple as having @WriteThis extend @Ignore, tools that care could glean th e fact that the test is not written, other tools would simply ignore the test. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2007-10-05 14:29 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO Roberto, How do you currently work around this problem? Do you manually inspect the results and mentally filter out the tests yet to be written from those indicating regressions? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1807227&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:24
|
Feature Requests item #1913113, was opened at 2008-03-12 22:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1913113&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: Alex (toalexsmail) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Failures, Assertion and AssertionError Initial Comment: In JUnit 3.8 there was difference between assertion error (assertTrue(flag) fails, for example) and exception (unexpected exception thrown). It was indicated as F (failures) and E (exception). Why this was removed from JUnit 4? Moreover, if asserts of JDK 1.4 was used (assert obj!=null;) both in the tested code and in the tests than, if assertion is enabled, AssertionError was thrown that caused to exception. In JUnit 4 it will cause to failure because AssertionFailedError now extends AssertionError so from JUnit point of view there is no difference. It is true, that in JUnit 4 there is no difference between failures and exception, so it shouldn't be a problem. But, as I see it is. Consider for example following example. public class Calculator { ... public double sqrt(double a){ //here should be check that a>=0 that is missing return doSqrt(a); } private double doSqrt(double a){ //a should be valid at this point assert "a should be not negative!" : a>=0; ... } } public class CalculatorTest { // the logger private static final Log log = LogFactory.getLog(CalculatorTest.class); private Calculator calc; @BeforeClass public static void oneTimeSetup(){ // do your one time set-up here! log.debug("Going to check whether asserts are enabled"); boolean assertsEnabled = false; assert (assertsEnabled = true); // Intentional side effect!!! if (!assertsEnabled) { throw new AssertionError("Asserts must be enabled!!!"); } } @Before public void setUp() throws Exception { calc = new Calculator(...); } public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { Request r = Request.aClass(clazz); JUnitCore runner = new JUnitCore(); RunListener listener= new TextListener(); runner.addListener(listener); runner.run(r); } @Test public void testNegative() throws Exception { try { calc.sqrt(-1); fail("IllegalArgumenException is expecting"); catch(IllegalArgumenException e){ assert true : "it' ok"; } } } assert are used inside the code in order to validate what programmer is think is true in some point of the program. They are often used to check preconditions of the private methods. In the above example, programmer that writed doSqrt() method states that precondition of this method is that he receives valid parameter. So, this JDK 1.4 assertion fails has nothing with JUnit 4 assertXXX() fails and it should be considered as exception, as in case that unexpected exception is thrown. IllegalArgumenException should be thrown in public sqrt() method. This is not happened because programmer forgot to do this check. It is the bug. Instead AssertionError is thrown by the code itself, because programmer that writed doSqrt() method clearly states that his precondition is that argument is valid. We should be fails before. AssertionError shouldn't happen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: Alex (toalexsmail) Date: 2008-05-01 03:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2034775 Originator: YES I've been clarifying the code. File Added: AssertTestDemo.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alex (toalexsmail) Date: 2008-05-01 02:47 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2034775 Originator: YES There is difference whether bug is in production code and junit assert fails, that is the bug is in production code OR bug is NOT in code that executes in production (JDK 1.4 asserts, unitest). If JDK 1.4 assertion that is placed in the actual code fails it is error, not failures. This information was actually very helpful for me. See file attached. File Added: AssertTestDemo.java ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Kent Beck (kbeck) Date: 2008-04-30 15:04 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=117320 Originator: NO We eliminated the distinction between failures and errors because the additional information didn't seem worth the additional complexity. I don't understand what behavior you would like to see. Please add a test case that currently fails that would pass if the system worked the way you would like it to. Kent Beck Three Rivers Institute ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Alex (toalexsmail) Date: 2008-04-29 07:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=2034775 Originator: YES Any comments? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1913113&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:24
|
Feature Requests item #1898590, was opened at 2008-02-21 10:16 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1898590&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: internal Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: abyx (abyx) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Allowing stopping of tests externally Initial Comment: Currently, the only way to stop tests that are being run using JUnitCore, is to implement a Runner that then has access to RunNotifier.pleaseStop(). This was possible to do in JUnit3 using TestResult.stop(). In my work place we found this feature very useful, as had programs that simply ran tests and processed the output. These programs weren't too coupled with JUnit, they simply listened to TestResult and processed the data. We would like to do the same thing with Result and RunListener. My suggestion is simply to add pleaseStop() to JUnitCore (which is always used for simply running tests). I've attached a patch proposal. Thanks, Aviv. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: abyx (abyx) Date: 2008-08-16 10:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1113076 Originator: YES You're right dsaff. This patch is better, I hope. File Added: stop-tests.junit.patch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2008-08-15 19:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=325156 Originator: NO abyx, This patch seems to be missing UserStoppingCoreTest.java. Did I miss it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=1898590&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:24
|
Feature Requests item #2072117, was opened at 2008-08-24 19:41 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2072117&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: Alexander Veit (veita) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add an @IgnoreAllButThis annotation Initial Comment: To debug test cases it is often neccessary to disable all test but one. Currently there seems to be no short way to do this with JUnit 4. @Documented @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Target(ElementType.METHOD) public @interface IgnoreAllButThis { /** * The optional reason why the test is ignored. */ String value() default ""; } ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2072117&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:23
|
Feature Requests item #2050133, was opened at 2008-08-13 19:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2050133&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: internal Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Rodrigo Couto (rcouto) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Mark exceptions thrown in test and @After differently Initial Comment: Currently it is very easy to get confused with exceptions thrown in tests (Failure object) because there isn't any way to distinguish if it has been thrown in the test body or on a @After method. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2050133&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:23
|
Feature Requests item #2090238, was opened at 2008-09-03 02:59 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2090238&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: Toby Byron (snakeeyes) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: javadocs should state the build number somewhere Initial Comment: I do not think that any of your javadocs state the build number (e.g. 4.5) anywhere. A good idea would be for you to have a proper overview.html page, and put the version number there. Include this file when you execute the javadoc command via the command line option -overview .../overview.html For details, see: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/tools/windows/javadoc.html#overviewcomment ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2090238&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:23
|
Feature Requests item #2042299, was opened at 2008-08-07 23:02 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2042299&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: kyjava (jackcarden) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Support Test Cases on other VMs Initial Comment: The test cases, as written and provided in JUnit 4.4, do not work properly with all other virtual machines. It would be nice to avoid the hard-coded dependencies on the name "java" as the name of the executable as well as the command line options that are supported only by the Sun implementation. See, for example: org.junit.tests.JUnitCoreTest and junit.tests.runner.TextRunnerTest Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2042299&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:23
|
Feature Requests item #2033150, was opened at 2008-07-30 21:08 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2033150&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: Mark Ziesemer (ziesemer) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Make result classes Serializable Initial Comment: This is closely related to closed feature request 825340, and slightly related to closed bug 595957. The following classes should be changed to implement java.io.Serializable: - org.junit.runner.notification.Failure - org.junit.runner.Description - org.junit.runner.Result This would not break any API compatibility. All fields held by these classes are either other instances of the listed classes, already serializable, or primitives which are serializable by definition. Simply, this would allow for these classes to be serialized and "sent over the wire", saved for future review, etc. This would also allow for instances of these classes to be contained in other serializable classes without having to be marked transient. Granted, none of these are severe reasons, but the real benefits may be the unseen ones - and I don't see any disadvantages. The alternative is having to write a number of mappers and "wrapper" classes that are serializable to hold all the same information. If requested, I will produce a patch to contain the changes and associated test cases. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2033150&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:23
|
Feature Requests item #2090298, was opened at 2008-09-03 03:41 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2090298&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: Toby Byron (snakeeyes) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: RunListener.testStarted(Description description) inadequate Initial Comment: RunListener.testStarted currently just takes a single Description param. The problem with this is that Description is currently very difficult to work with, because its sole informational method, getDisplayName, offers NO contract as to what its contents can be. I am writing a framework in which I need to know when testStarted is called what class and method are being tested. My need is not merely for changing some UI label or something--for pure human readable uses like these, Description's getDisplayName suffices. No, when the class name changes my framework needs to do other actions. So, the program needs to be able to precisely determine this information. Currently, I simply GUESS as to how Description.getDisplayName formats the package, class, and method information, and then I parse it. At the end of this post is a copy of the code that I now use to do this task, if you are interested. This approach is ugly but it works for now. But if you change your format, then the Description.getDisplayName parsing code breaks. Possible solutions: 1) modify RunListener.testStarted to have this signature: testStarted(Description, Package, Class, Method) 2) add these methods to Description: getPackage, getClass, getMethod 3) write a contract for the format used by Description.getDisplayName so that we can count on it in the future ******************** Here is some code that you can download on the web which knows how to parse fields out of Description. Goto http://www.ellipticgroup.com/misc/projectLibrary.zip The code below is an inner class of the file JUnitExecutor.java (which you may be interested in for other reasons). /** * Parses and stores fields from a {@link Description}. * This class was only introduced because Description fails to offer the necessary API. * <p> * This class is multithread safe: it is immutable (both its immediate state, as well as the deep state of its fields). */ private static class DescriptionFields { private final String packageName; private final String className; private final String methodName; private DescriptionFields(Description description) { String s = description.getDisplayName(); String pkgClName; if (s.contains("(")) { if (!s.contains(")")) throw new IllegalStateException( "description.getDisplayName() = " + s + " contains'(' but does not contain ')'" ); String[] tokens = s.split("\\(|\\)", 0); // matches the chars '(' or ')'; CRITICAL: must use 0 to drop the final empty token that is otherwise produced (e.g. if use -1) if (tokens.length != 2) throw new IllegalStateException( "tokens.length = " + tokens.length + " != 2; happened for description.getDisplayName() = " + s + " which produced tokens = " + StringUtil.toString(tokens, ",") ); pkgClName = tokens[1]; methodName = tokens[0]; } else { pkgClName = s; methodName = null; } int i = pkgClName.lastIndexOf('.'); if (i == -1) { packageName = null; className = pkgClName; } else { packageName = pkgClName.substring(0, i); className = pkgClName.substring(i + 1); } } private String getClassNameFull() { if (packageName == null) return className; return packageName + "." + className; } } ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2090298&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:22
|
Feature Requests item #2090304, was opened at 2008-09-03 03:44 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2090304&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: Toby Byron (snakeeyes) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Description.getChildren return type not generic Initial Comment: Description.getChildren currently returns a ArrayList<Description>. Was there a reason why you wanted to commit to an ArrayList instead of a generic List? If so (random access required?), then please javadoc the reason. Otherwise, you should consider changing the result to the more generic List<Description>. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2090304&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:22
|
Feature Requests item #2093247, was opened at 2008-09-04 14:16 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2093247&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: need details about run start/stop for timing purposes Initial Comment: I need RunListener to tell me somehow exactly when a given test started and stopped, so that I can report its execution time. I would also like to know the start/stop of the entire run. The answer needs to be in nanoseconds, measured using 1.5's System.nanoTime call. It looks like Description/Result respectively need to be modified. Result.getRunTime() does seem to report the execution time of the entire run (javadocs: "the number of milliseconds it took to run the entire suite to run"). However, the milliseconds result makes me suspect that System.currentTimeMillis is internally used, which is bad because a) it is typially less accurate than System.nanoTime b) being a "wall clock" value, it is subject to events like NTP time resets, daylight savings time resets etc that can introduce gross execution timeing errors. See http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-benchmark1.html#etm By the way, if you choose to modify Description to include this value, make sure that the fix is coordinated with any changes due to http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2090298&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2093247&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:22
|
Feature Requests item #2095139, was opened at 2008-09-05 14:46 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2095139&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: Toby Byron (snakeeyes) Assigned to: David Saff (dsaff) Summary: Assert.assertArrayEquals for doubles needed Initial Comment: Assert.assertArrayEquals(double[], double[]) and Assert.assertArrayEquals(double[], double[], double epsilon) need to be supplied. Currently, Assert.assertArrayEquals versions exist for most of the other primitives, but not for doubles; this needs to be corrected. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: David Saff (dsaff) Date: 2008-10-27 19:28 Message: Working on it... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2095139&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:22
|
Feature Requests item #2094304, was opened at 2008-09-05 03:33 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2094304&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Failure.getException misnamed Initial Comment: Failure.getException returns a Throwable (as well it ought to), but it is misnamed: it should be called getThrowable. Maybe you could deprecate getException while adding getThrowable in the next release, and then completely remove getException thereafter? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2094304&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:22
|
Feature Requests item #2093264, was opened at 2008-09-04 14:22 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2093264&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: javadoc for RunListener.testIgnored needs clarification Initial Comment: In order for RunListener.testIgnored to get triggered on a method, that method must be annotated with both @Ignore and @Test. The javadocs for Ignore say this well, but testIgnored could be a little more explicit. I would rewrite RunListener.testIgnored's javadoc to say: "Called when a test will not be run, generally because a test method (i.e. one annotated with Test) is additionally annotated with Ignore." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2093264&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:22
|
Feature Requests item #2093267, was opened at 2008-09-04 14:24 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2093267&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: javadoc for RunListener.testFailure needs clarification Initial Comment: The javadoc for RunListener.testFailure should state that it is called in between calls to testStarted and testFinished in the event that the test method throws a Throwable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2093267&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:22
|
Feature Requests item #2701131, was opened at 2009-03-21 19:52 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2701131&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: Michael Forsberg (bigmike_f) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add Before, After Parameterized Run annotations Initial Comment: Currently there is no simple way for a method to be invoked before or after a Parameterized instance is ran. Said another way, along with @BeforeClass and @AfterClass there should be @BeforeParameterRun @AfterParameterRun. Each fires before/after a Parameterized instance is ran. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: Michael Forsberg (bigmike_f) Date: 2009-03-22 20:22 Message: I have implemented a patch for this on github.com/bigmikef/junit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2701131&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:21
|
Feature Requests item #2222651, was opened at 2008-11-04 22:22 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2222651&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: Henrik Kaipe (kaipe) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: enum-classes for parameterized testing Initial Comment: The attached test-runner "EnumRunner" makes it possible to write parameterized tests as enum-classes. It is a very simple runner-implementation that delegates the test-execution of each single enum-constant to a slightly modified BlockJUnit4ClassRunner instance. I used to use the Parameterized-runner but some time ago I came up with the idea of using enum-classes instead and I this is the runner I developed. Some advantages compared to the Parameterized-runner are - Compile-time validation of constructor parameters (see javadoc example) - Elegant improvements to test-descriptions, thanks to the enum-constant names - The parameter declarations are much cleaner (No @Parameters-method needed) - Cleaner runner implementation since the runner does not need to create the test-instance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: 2008-11-09 04:17 Message: This doesn't allow dynamic creation of tests though... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2222651&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:21
|
Feature Requests item #2094316, was opened at 2008-09-05 03:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2094316&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Request.filterWith has bizarre behavior Initial Comment: Request.filterWith(Filter) (and filterWith(Description) too?) currently has very bizarre behavior: it returns a NEW Request instance which has the desired filtering behavior. However, the old Request instance is left unaffected. This means that the following code--which everyone is likely to naturally want to write--is actually buggy: Request request = Request.classes(someClass); request.filterWith(someFilter); The correct code, which took me awhile to figure out, is: Request request = Request.classes(someClass); request = request.filterWith(someFilter); If you are going to retain this strange behavior, the javadocs of filterWith need to be modified to explicitly point out this behavior, and show both the buggy and corrent code examples above. But I would recommend that you change the behavior. The best way would be to add Filter or Description options to the Request constructor, so that you could do everything on one line like: Request request = Request.classes(someClass, someFilter); The state of Request could be made final so that it is immutable and multithread safe etc. Baring that, change filterWith(Filter) to NOT return a new Request but to simply modify the instance at hand. Then I think that the method would behave like most programmers expect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2094316&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:21
|
Feature Requests item #2147487, was opened at 2008-10-05 08:20 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2147487&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: Will D. Spann (wspann) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Javadoc for org.hamcrest.Matcher missing from 4.5 release Initial Comment: It would be nice if the Javadoc for the org.hamcrest.Matcher class were included in the v4.5 ZIP release. This class is used by org.junit.matchers.JUnitMatchers, and the class file is included in the junit4.5.jar file, so it'd be nice to be able to read this Javadoc without having to track down the full org.hamcrest Javadocs. Most of JUnitMatchers' methods have a Matcher parameter, and they all return one, so to use this class effectively, having this Javadoc is a necessity. Thanks for considering this. Note: I eventually found the Javadoc for the Hamcrest library, but it's not even included in their ZIP release. The JMock project is hosting it, but there are no links to these docs from the Hamcrest project web site (http://code.google.com/p/hamcrest/). It is somewhat hard to find. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: Will D. Spann (wspann) Date: 2008-10-05 08:24 Message: Note: The Hamcrest Javadocs are only included on the JMock.org site as part of the JMock Javadocs, so there is no separate Hamcrest Javadocs that I could find. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2147487&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:21
|
Feature Requests item #2094290, was opened at 2008-09-05 03:29 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2094290&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: RunListener.testIgnored needs to supply the reason Initial Comment: RunListener.testIgnored currently simply has a Description argument. That Description argument currently just identifies the test method. Somehow--either by modifying what the Description arg contains or by adding another parameter to testIgnored--you need to supply the reason why the test method was ignored. For example, if the annotation is @Ignore("not ready yet") then "not ready yet" should be made in the event information. If you chose to modify the contents of Description, beware of http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2090298&group_id=15278&atid=365278 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2094290&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:21
|
Feature Requests item #2194016, was opened at 2008-10-25 11:57 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2194016&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: idan shay (idan72) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add listener to class method Initial Comment: It will be very helpful for us if there will listener that will notify us when @BeforeClass or @AfterClass method is called. One of the reasons is that we want to divide the logs for each test and we do that but because we don't know when the @Before,@After Class method start it cause problems especially if the @BeforeClass failed. Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2194016&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:21
|
Feature Requests item #2149557, was opened at 2008-10-06 13:59 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2149557&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: Dominic Mitchell (dom2) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: assertThat generics enhancement Initial Comment: It would be really nice if assertThat() allowed a subclass to match. i.e. public static <T> void assertThat(T actual, Matcher<? extends T> matcher) { } Why does this matter? At the moment, I'm testing things that are coming out of a ServletContext. And ServletContext.getAttribute() returns an Object. And I'd like to be able to say: assertThat(context.getAttribute("foo"), is("bar")); But eclipse complains with "The method assertThat(T, Matcher<T>) in the type Assert is no applicable for the arguments (Object, Matcher<String>). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2149557&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:20
|
Feature Requests item #2503995, was opened at 2009-01-13 09:10 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2503995&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Make Parameterized#getParametersList() protected Initial Comment: Everything in the title. The idea is to allow creation of specialized runners that would inject parameters list, instead of letting concrete test cases do it. I needed this feature to implement wrapping of jqUnit tests withing JUnit 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: 2009-06-16 04:31 Message: This specifically would seem to break encapsulation. However, lazy loading of parameters is being discussed, see: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/junit/message/21720 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2503995&group_id=15278 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-12-01 02:20:20
|
Feature Requests item #2353697, was opened at 2008-11-27 14:28 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sf-robot You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2353697&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: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Add abilty to run concurrent tests Initial Comment: It would be very good time improvement if tests could be run in parallel threads. This can be done with a special @Concurrent annotation, or so on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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: 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: 2008-11-28 07:26 Message: As I can see, this feature is based on these: 1. Some tests are (or have to be, or can be) isolated. 2. Some tests take long time to execute, but have small cpu usage. 3. Results of test execution are stored separately for each test. According to this, we have two ways: 1. Add ability to run test simulateously within a test suite 2. Add ability to execute test suits simulateously too. And a crossover of them too ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=365278&aid=2353697&group_id=15278 |
