Re: [Junit-devel] Adding @NonParameterized

[David S. <da...@sa...>]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Marius Kruger <am...@gm...> wrote:
> On 16 June 2011 16:45, David Saff <da...@sa...> wrote:
>> Marius,
>>
>> Thanks, now I understand where this is going.  Genuinely sorry for the
>> git busywork.  I still don't know why the attachments aren't getting
>> passed along.
>
> They were probably just a little too big and needed moderation. That's
> why I mailed it to you directly too.
>
>> As to the feature itself, I'm confused--what's the cost of moving the
>> non-parameterized tests to their own class?  You can also use
>> @RunWith(Enclosed.class) to have several inner classes, with different
>> parameterizations, inside one file.
>
> In short that is not how I'd like to use it, is there any reason why
> you don't want this feature?

Parameterized.class currently allows one parameterization per test
class.  This patch enables two parameterizations, one of which must be
the special case of "no parameters".  A runner like JUnitParams
(http://code.google.com/p/junitparams/) enables an arbitrary number of
parameterizations, including "no parameters".  I'd like to consider
how to handle the arbitrary case, like JUnitParams, and would rather
not create a special case for "no parameters" that users would need to
migrate to the new framework when it's ready.

Does that make sense?

   David Saff


> I like to group tests that test the same functionality and require the
> same setup in the same class.
> So if it makes sense for some tests to run several times and some only once
> and they all use the same setup, I'd like them in one class.
> If there are one or two tests that does not need to execute multiple
> times then I'll rather let them
> execute multiple times than split them out into their own class
> because they belong with the others.
> But if it is easy to mark them to not execute multiple times then I
> want to do that.
> Multiple nested classes will be much uglier than a simple annotation, IMHO.
> The first 3 classes that I wanted to use Parameterized on I also
> wanted partially @NonParameterized.
> I'd really rather have this in the core of junit in stead of
> maintaining my own junit utils elsewhere.
>
> --
> thanks for listening :-)
> <>< Marius ><>
>