You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com> on 2019/07/01 14:09:46 UTC

Re: Migration to JUnit 5

Hi, Igniters

During work on IEP-30, which is about JUnit migration, I found that some
tests in examples module were commented [1] with the remark, that they
should be fixed in the ticket IGNITE-711 [2] which is about the
implementation of Java 8 examples.

In the context of the ticket IGNITE-10973 [3] I want to uncomment them and
mark as @Disabled. Is it really need to disable mentioned tests or I can
just remove them as outdated?

[1]
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6606/files#diff-ed48193d25d777a2c30c187fa20a1a65L65
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973


вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 18:51, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:

> Ivan,
> I will investigate GridAbstractTest refactoring issue more precisely when
> I finish with JUnit3Legacy classes. Anyway, I will keep in touch with you
> and the community on the most significant moments.
>
> JUnit5 docs say that functionality is not full "especially with regard to
> reporting". On the other hand, I also agree with docs that it is the
> easiest way that does not require to touch CI infrastructure. I am going to
> try @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction with features from IEP to
> make sure that we will have the full support of them. The alternative way
> is dynamic tests [1], but the problem is that we add methods to suites
> manually, not via @Test annotation. It is some kind of rollback to JUnit3
> syntax.
>
> Anton,
> thank you for the reminder, I will update IEP according to the
> conversation.
>
> [1] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
>
> вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 17:56, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Please make sure you keep IEP updated and each issue mentioned.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:28 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ivan,
>> >
>> > Thank you for detailed answers! I would put a great care to
>> > @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction. As stated in junit5 docs
>> > [1] it does not support all features and unfortunately it is not clear
>> > how limited it is. Also, it is some kind of transitional mechanism
>> > which was not designed for being a long term solution.
>> >
>> > And I fully support an idea of refactoring GridAbstractTest. I think
>> > it is possible to make a significant improvement here.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#running-tests-junit-platform-runner
>> >
>> > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 17:41, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > Hello Nikolay.
>> > >
>> > > The prime benefits are more comfortable work with flaky tests, Java 8
>> > tests
>> > > compatibility, user-friendly syntaxis in parametrized tests and
>> others.
>> > > The most significant features list you can find in IEP-30 Motivation
>> > > section.
>> > >
>> > > If you have any specific questions about JUnit5 feel free to ask me.
>> > >
>> > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:55, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello, Ivan.
>> > > >
>> > > > May be I miss some mail - if yes, can you repeat it.
>> > > > What is advantages of migration from junit 4 to 5?
>> > > > Why we should do it?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:33, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Ivan,
>> > > > > That is my thoughts according to your questions.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. I tried to implement test suits with JUnit4 compatibility
>> layer.
>> > The
>> > > > > basic concept is to use @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
>> @SelectClasses
>> > > > > ({...})[1] and on
>> > > > > CI Ignite it works fine.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2. According to @Rules, there are several ways to solve it:
>> > > > >     2.1 Leave JUnit4 code without changes. It will work because of
>> > > > Vintage
>> > > > > module
>> > > > >     2.2 Rewrite the @Rule as an Extension. The work of extension
>> is
>> > > > similar
>> > > > > to the @Rules work, but it is extracted in an Extension class.
>> > > > >     For more information about extensions, please, follow the IEP
>> > [2].
>> > > > > In my opinion, the easiest and the most understandable way is to
>> > leave
>> > > > > GridAbstractTest in current form. It will work with JUnit5
>> > > > > syntaxis and abilities.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 3. I faced a couple of problems during dealing with dynamic and
>> > static
>> > > > > tests in one project with JUnit5. The problem occurs with surefire
>> > > > version:
>> > > > > static tests work fine with 2.21x and earlier and with dynamic
>> > tests, the
>> > > > > situation is vice versa, it works with > 2.21x surefire version.
>> > > > > We can use helpful surefire dependency to use static tests with
>> the
>> > > > newest
>> > > > > surefire version [3], but dynamic tests become unavailable from
>> pure
>> > > > > Maven and accordingly from CI Ignite (from IDE all is fine).
>> > > > > I can suggest leaving this type of tests on JUnit4 on the current
>> > stage -
>> > > > > they are in the vast minority.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Let me comment on your side notes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am not against the stable and widely-used test library usage.
>> All I
>> > > > want
>> > > > > to say that it is not necessary in case of the main testing Ignite
>> > > > > framework (Junit) already provides the mentioned features.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > At the initial stage of improvements 3->4 I am planning to remove
>> > > > > JUnit3TestLegacyAssert, JUnit3TestLegacySupport classes. I guess
>> that
>> > > > > during this work
>> > > > > I will face with an issue that you are mentioned - turning
>> instance
>> > > > methods
>> > > > > to static. It is because of beforeTestsStarted and
>> afterTestsStarted
>> > > > > methods - I want to replace them by methods with BeforeAll,
>> AfterAll
>> > > > > annotations. But the point is that methods under such annotations
>> > must be
>> > > > > static. Just now I am not sure about fully removing
>> > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest class, but the need for static methods is a
>> > fact.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/85ba3a88d661bb05bbb749bd1feaf60cd9099ddc/examples/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/testsuites/IgniteExamplesSelfTestSuite.java#L59
>> > > > > [2]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
>> > > > > [3] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1778
>> > > > >
>> > > > > вс, 24 февр. 2019 г. в 10:15, Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com
>> >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Ivan,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Indeed junit5 has a lot of powerful features which can improve
>> > testing
>> > > > > > process.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > But first we should go through a migration process. There are
>> > several
>> > > > > > items which looks quite challenging.
>> > > > > > 1. Test suites support. Correct me if I am missed it, but I have
>> > not
>> > > > > > found a concept of test suites similar to junit3/4 ones. CI in
>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > heavily depends on test suites. Is there an alternative in
>> junit5?
>> > > > > > 2. The majority of our tests extend GridAbstractTest which in
>> fact
>> > is
>> > > > > > a core class in Ignite testing. Writing a test without extending
>> > it is
>> > > > > > not a good idea. Currently it employs number of junit4 concepts,
>> > e.g.
>> > > > > > test rules which as I saw are not supported in junit5. So, it
>> > sounds
>> > > > > > that some changes in GridAbstractTest need to be done. During
>> > > > > > migration from junit 3 to 4 GridAbstractTest used kind of
>> mimicry,
>> > it
>> > > > > > can be used as a base class for junit3 and junit4 tests at the
>> same
>> > > > > > time. How can we address transitional period now?
>> > > > > > 3. Also we have bunch of tests using our home-brewed
>> > parametrization.
>> > > > > > You can find them by searching usages of
>> > > > > > ConfigVariationsTestSuiteBuilder. This part was rather tricky
>> > during
>> > > > > > migration to junit4.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Do we have a plan for all these items?
>> > > > > > ----
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Couple of side notes.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Regarding dependencies minimization. Actually, I think it is
>> > important
>> > > > > > for junit itself as a library. Many libraries try to minimize
>> > > > > > dependency. In Ignite we do so as well. But in my opinion it is
>> not
>> > > > > > the case in context of libraries used during testing. If we have
>> > > > > > useful, stable and widely-used test library which can improve
>> our
>> > > > > > processes why should not we use it?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Regarding removing leftovers left after junit 3->4 migration.
>> > > > > > Actually, I think that GridAbstractTest and
>> GridCommonAbstractTest
>> > can
>> > > > > > be refactored in order to simplify further development and
>> > migration
>> > > > > > to new testing framework. For example, there are a lot of
>> instance
>> > > > > > methods which can be turned to static methods. Various
>> > start/stopGrid
>> > > > > > methods fall into this category. They can be extracted into some
>> > > > > > utility class and imported statically. Perhaps, after number of
>> > such
>> > > > > > refactoring we will be able to write tests without extending
>> > > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > пт, 22 февр. 2019 г. в 18:33, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan639@gmail.com
>> >:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Ivan!
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  Junit5 differs from JUnit4 not so strong as 4 from 3
>> version. Of
>> > > > > course,
>> > > > > > > we can use AssertJ and other libraries, but it is more
>> > comfortable to
>> > > > > > > use functionality from the box. Moreover, the JUnit team
>> provides
>> > > > > strong
>> > > > > > > support for its products and it is the core JUnit principle -
>> > > > minimize
>> > > > > > > third-party dependency [1].
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  According to Parameterized tests, it has several cons in
>> JUnit4:
>> > > > > > >  1. Test classes use fields and constructors to define
>> > parameters,
>> > > > > which
>> > > > > > > make tests more verbose
>> > > > > > >  2. It requires a separate test class for each method being
>> > tested.
>> > > > > > >  In JUnit5 it has a simplified parameter syntax and supports
>> > multiple
>> > > > > > > data-set source types, including CSV and annotation
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  Impact on daily test development does not so differ from
>> > development
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > JUnit4. We also can use annotations to mark methods as tests,
>> but
>> > > > some
>> > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > annotations have
>> > > > > > > different names - you can see it in the ticket description
>> [2].
>> > You
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > use those annotations and different import, but these are
>> minor
>> > > > > changes.
>> > > > > > >  We can change suites from static to dynamic tests [3], but I
>> am
>> > not
>> > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > that it is necessary. If you have any arguments in favor of
>> > dynamic
>> > > > > > tests,
>> > > > > > > I am ready to discuss them.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  Now I see that changes in GridAbstractTest are not required.
>> > Only
>> > > > > > > improvements in JUnit 3->4 migration, which were given in IEP.
>> > Other
>> > > > > > JUnit5
>> > > > > > > features we can use with additional imports. The problem can
>> > appear
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > dynamic tests because we can not launch static and dynamic
>> under
>> > one
>> > > > > > > surefire version. I made a preliminary migration on examples
>> > module,
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > > can take a look on it [4], but now it is still in work.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I tried to find some other JUnit5 features and added them to
>> > IEP. If
>> > > > I
>> > > > > > miss
>> > > > > > > something, please, let me now, we will also take it into
>> account.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  [1]
>> https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/wiki/Core-Principles
>> > > > > > >  [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10958
>> > > > > > >  [3] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
>> > > > > > >  [4] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5888
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:45, Павлухин Иван <
>> vololo100@gmail.com
>> > >:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thank you for your efforts!
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I checked a section "Motivation" in IEP and I think that we
>> > should
>> > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > more details there. You provided mostly examples of more
>> > convenient
>> > > > > > > > assertions. But there are other options to deal with it.
>> E.g.
>> > > > AssertJ
>> > > > > > > > library [1] (I think that we can consider it even after
>> > migration
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > junit5). It would be great if we can describe some junit5
>> > features
>> > > > > > > > which can make our life simpler and there is no alternative
>> in
>> > > > > junit4.
>> > > > > > > > E.g. we have the similar Parameterized concept in junit4,
>> so it
>> > > > does
>> > > > > > > > not look as a big win here.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Also, an impact on everyday development should be estimated.
>> > As I
>> > > > > > > > know, junit5 has a compatibility layer which allows to
>> migrate
>> > from
>> > > > > > > > junit4 seamlessly. But as I understood you would like to use
>> > new
>> > > > > > > > junit5 features. And we have well-known GridAbstractTest
>> which
>> > > > > > > > historically was bound to junit3, now is bound to junit4.
>> > Should we
>> > > > > > > > change it significantly for junit5? Should we change other
>> > existing
>> > > > > > > > tests? Suites?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Could you please address my concerns?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Let's discuss pros and cons. I will be happy to help there.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > [1] http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:07, Ivan Fedotov <
>> > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you, access is fine.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I have created the corresponding IEP [1].
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Now I am going to continue work on this. If somebody has
>> any
>> > > > > > suggestions
>> > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > additions I am ready to discuss them.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 01:42, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Done, please check access now.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <
>> > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you for the response.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > My wiki username is "ivanan", the related mailbox is
>> > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > .
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:38, Dmitriy Pavlov <
>> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
>> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Now admin service is unavailable (gives error 503).
>> > I'll
>> > > > add
>> > > > > > rights
>> > > > > > > > > > once
>> > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is up and running.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you share your wiki username? I can't find any
>> > users
>> > > > > who
>> > > > > > > > signed
>> > > > > > > > > > up
>> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the wiki with any similar email/username
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:26, Ivan Fedotov <
>> > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to formalize migration to JUnit5 and
>> > create
>> > > > > IEP
>> > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > include related issues.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I already started to work on one of the issues [1]
>> > and
>> > > > > > created a
>> > > > > > > > > > draft
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the corresponding IEP [2].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, give me rights for confluence to create
>> IEP.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > >
>> > https://gist.github.com/1vanan/1f81319f1dc6d6ebca30c216fdd82759
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Ivan Fedotov.
>> > >
>> > > ivanan639@gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Ivan Fedotov.
>
> ivanan639@gmail.com
>


-- 
Ivan Fedotov.

ivanan639@gmail.com

Re: Migration to JUnit 5

Posted by Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>.

Ivan, thank you for clarification.

If nobody is against I can uncomment them in the context of IGNITE-711.

пт, 5 июл. 2019 г. в 11:33, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:

> Ivan,
>
> I think that it is a really good that you found those not tested
> examples. Thank you!
>
> пт, 5 июл. 2019 г. в 11:31, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Ivan,
> >
> > I uncommented all tests referring to IGNITE-711 [1] in
> > BasicExamplesSelfTest and all they passed.
> >
> > Generally, example tests are needed to be sure that our examples
> > launch. And commented tests refer to existing examples. So, an ideal
> > way here is to uncomment them in scope of IGNITE-711 [1], removal is
> > not a good option. And I do not expect much problems here because we
> > fully support Java 8 for a long time.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711
> >
> > пн, 1 июл. 2019 г. в 17:10, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Hi, Igniters
> > >
> > > During work on IEP-30, which is about JUnit migration, I found that
> some
> > > tests in examples module were commented [1] with the remark, that they
> > > should be fixed in the ticket IGNITE-711 [2] which is about the
> > > implementation of Java 8 examples.
> > >
> > > In the context of the ticket IGNITE-10973 [3] I want to uncomment them
> and
> > > mark as @Disabled. Is it really need to disable mentioned tests or I
> can
> > > just remove them as outdated?
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6606/files#diff-ed48193d25d777a2c30c187fa20a1a65L65
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 18:51, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Ivan,
> > > > I will investigate GridAbstractTest refactoring issue more precisely
> when
> > > > I finish with JUnit3Legacy classes. Anyway, I will keep in touch
> with you
> > > > and the community on the most significant moments.
> > > >
> > > > JUnit5 docs say that functionality is not full "especially with
> regard to
> > > > reporting". On the other hand, I also agree with docs that it is the
> > > > easiest way that does not require to touch CI infrastructure. I am
> going to
> > > > try @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction with features from
> IEP to
> > > > make sure that we will have the full support of them. The
> alternative way
> > > > is dynamic tests [1], but the problem is that we add methods to
> suites
> > > > manually, not via @Test annotation. It is some kind of rollback to
> JUnit3
> > > > syntax.
> > > >
> > > > Anton,
> > > > thank you for the reminder, I will update IEP according to the
> > > > conversation.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
> > > >
> > > > вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 17:56, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >> Folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> Please make sure you keep IEP updated and each issue mentioned.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:28 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Ivan,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thank you for detailed answers! I would put a great care to
> > > >> > @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction. As stated in junit5
> docs
> > > >> > [1] it does not support all features and unfortunately it is not
> clear
> > > >> > how limited it is. Also, it is some kind of transitional mechanism
> > > >> > which was not designed for being a long term solution.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And I fully support an idea of refactoring GridAbstractTest. I
> think
> > > >> > it is possible to make a significant improvement here.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [1]
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#running-tests-junit-platform-runner
> > > >> >
> > > >> > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 17:41, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Hello Nikolay.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The prime benefits are more comfortable work with flaky tests,
> Java 8
> > > >> > tests
> > > >> > > compatibility, user-friendly syntaxis in parametrized tests and
> > > >> others.
> > > >> > > The most significant features list you can find in IEP-30
> Motivation
> > > >> > > section.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If you have any specific questions about JUnit5 feel free to
> ask me.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:55, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org>:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > May be I miss some mail - if yes, can you repeat it.
> > > >> > > > What is advantages of migration from junit 4 to 5?
> > > >> > > > Why we should do it?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:33, Ivan Fedotov <
> ivanan639@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > That is my thoughts according to your questions.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 1. I tried to implement test suits with JUnit4 compatibility
> > > >> layer.
> > > >> > The
> > > >> > > > > basic concept is to use @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
> > > >> @SelectClasses
> > > >> > > > > ({...})[1] and on
> > > >> > > > > CI Ignite it works fine.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 2. According to @Rules, there are several ways to solve it:
> > > >> > > > >     2.1 Leave JUnit4 code without changes. It will work
> because of
> > > >> > > > Vintage
> > > >> > > > > module
> > > >> > > > >     2.2 Rewrite the @Rule as an Extension. The work of
> extension
> > > >> is
> > > >> > > > similar
> > > >> > > > > to the @Rules work, but it is extracted in an Extension
> class.
> > > >> > > > >     For more information about extensions, please, follow
> the IEP
> > > >> > [2].
> > > >> > > > > In my opinion, the easiest and the most understandable way
> is to
> > > >> > leave
> > > >> > > > > GridAbstractTest in current form. It will work with JUnit5
> > > >> > > > > syntaxis and abilities.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 3. I faced a couple of problems during dealing with dynamic
> and
> > > >> > static
> > > >> > > > > tests in one project with JUnit5. The problem occurs with
> surefire
> > > >> > > > version:
> > > >> > > > > static tests work fine with 2.21x and earlier and with
> dynamic
> > > >> > tests, the
> > > >> > > > > situation is vice versa, it works with > 2.21x surefire
> version.
> > > >> > > > > We can use helpful surefire dependency to use static tests
> with
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > newest
> > > >> > > > > surefire version [3], but dynamic tests become unavailable
> from
> > > >> pure
> > > >> > > > > Maven and accordingly from CI Ignite (from IDE all is fine).
> > > >> > > > > I can suggest leaving this type of tests on JUnit4 on the
> current
> > > >> > stage -
> > > >> > > > > they are in the vast minority.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Let me comment on your side notes.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I am not against the stable and widely-used test library
> usage.
> > > >> All I
> > > >> > > > want
> > > >> > > > > to say that it is not necessary in case of the main testing
> Ignite
> > > >> > > > > framework (Junit) already provides the mentioned features.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > At the initial stage of improvements 3->4 I am planning to
> remove
> > > >> > > > > JUnit3TestLegacyAssert, JUnit3TestLegacySupport classes. I
> guess
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > > > during this work
> > > >> > > > > I will face with an issue that you are mentioned - turning
> > > >> instance
> > > >> > > > methods
> > > >> > > > > to static. It is because of beforeTestsStarted and
> > > >> afterTestsStarted
> > > >> > > > > methods - I want to replace them by methods with BeforeAll,
> > > >> AfterAll
> > > >> > > > > annotations. But the point is that methods under such
> annotations
> > > >> > must be
> > > >> > > > > static. Just now I am not sure about fully removing
> > > >> > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest class, but the need for static
> methods is a
> > > >> > fact.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/85ba3a88d661bb05bbb749bd1feaf60cd9099ddc/examples/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/testsuites/IgniteExamplesSelfTestSuite.java#L59
> > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
> > > >> > > > > [3] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1778
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > вс, 24 февр. 2019 г. в 10:15, Павлухин Иван <
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >> >:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Indeed junit5 has a lot of powerful features which can
> improve
> > > >> > testing
> > > >> > > > > > process.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > But first we should go through a migration process. There
> are
> > > >> > several
> > > >> > > > > > items which looks quite challenging.
> > > >> > > > > > 1. Test suites support. Correct me if I am missed it, but
> I have
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > > > found a concept of test suites similar to junit3/4 ones.
> CI in
> > > >> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > heavily depends on test suites. Is there an alternative in
> > > >> junit5?
> > > >> > > > > > 2. The majority of our tests extend GridAbstractTest
> which in
> > > >> fact
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > a core class in Ignite testing. Writing a test without
> extending
> > > >> > it is
> > > >> > > > > > not a good idea. Currently it employs number of junit4
> concepts,
> > > >> > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > test rules which as I saw are not supported in junit5.
> So, it
> > > >> > sounds
> > > >> > > > > > that some changes in GridAbstractTest need to be done.
> During
> > > >> > > > > > migration from junit 3 to 4 GridAbstractTest used kind of
> > > >> mimicry,
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > > > can be used as a base class for junit3 and junit4 tests
> at the
> > > >> same
> > > >> > > > > > time. How can we address transitional period now?
> > > >> > > > > > 3. Also we have bunch of tests using our home-brewed
> > > >> > parametrization.
> > > >> > > > > > You can find them by searching usages of
> > > >> > > > > > ConfigVariationsTestSuiteBuilder. This part was rather
> tricky
> > > >> > during
> > > >> > > > > > migration to junit4.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Do we have a plan for all these items?
> > > >> > > > > > ----
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Couple of side notes.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Regarding dependencies minimization. Actually, I think it
> is
> > > >> > important
> > > >> > > > > > for junit itself as a library. Many libraries try to
> minimize
> > > >> > > > > > dependency. In Ignite we do so as well. But in my opinion
> it is
> > > >> not
> > > >> > > > > > the case in context of libraries used during testing. If
> we have
> > > >> > > > > > useful, stable and widely-used test library which can
> improve
> > > >> our
> > > >> > > > > > processes why should not we use it?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Regarding removing leftovers left after junit 3->4
> migration.
> > > >> > > > > > Actually, I think that GridAbstractTest and
> > > >> GridCommonAbstractTest
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > > > > be refactored in order to simplify further development and
> > > >> > migration
> > > >> > > > > > to new testing framework. For example, there are a lot of
> > > >> instance
> > > >> > > > > > methods which can be turned to static methods. Various
> > > >> > start/stopGrid
> > > >> > > > > > methods fall into this category. They can be extracted
> into some
> > > >> > > > > > utility class and imported statically. Perhaps, after
> number of
> > > >> > such
> > > >> > > > > > refactoring we will be able to write tests without
> extending
> > > >> > > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > пт, 22 февр. 2019 г. в 18:33, Ivan Fedotov <
> ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> >:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Hi Ivan!
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >  Junit5 differs from JUnit4 not so strong as 4 from 3
> > > >> version. Of
> > > >> > > > > course,
> > > >> > > > > > > we can use AssertJ and other libraries, but it is more
> > > >> > comfortable to
> > > >> > > > > > > use functionality from the box. Moreover, the JUnit team
> > > >> provides
> > > >> > > > > strong
> > > >> > > > > > > support for its products and it is the core JUnit
> principle -
> > > >> > > > minimize
> > > >> > > > > > > third-party dependency [1].
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >  According to Parameterized tests, it has several cons
> in
> > > >> JUnit4:
> > > >> > > > > > >  1. Test classes use fields and constructors to define
> > > >> > parameters,
> > > >> > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > > make tests more verbose
> > > >> > > > > > >  2. It requires a separate test class for each method
> being
> > > >> > tested.
> > > >> > > > > > >  In JUnit5 it has a simplified parameter syntax and
> supports
> > > >> > multiple
> > > >> > > > > > > data-set source types, including CSV and annotation
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >  Impact on daily test development does not so differ
> from
> > > >> > development
> > > >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > > JUnit4. We also can use annotations to mark methods as
> tests,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > main
> > > >> > > > > > > annotations have
> > > >> > > > > > > different names - you can see it in the ticket
> description
> > > >> [2].
> > > >> > You
> > > >> > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > use those annotations and different import, but these
> are
> > > >> minor
> > > >> > > > > changes.
> > > >> > > > > > >  We can change suites from static to dynamic tests [3],
> but I
> > > >> am
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > > sure
> > > >> > > > > > > that it is necessary. If you have any arguments in
> favor of
> > > >> > dynamic
> > > >> > > > > > tests,
> > > >> > > > > > > I am ready to discuss them.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >  Now I see that changes in GridAbstractTest are not
> required.
> > > >> > Only
> > > >> > > > > > > improvements in JUnit 3->4 migration, which were given
> in IEP.
> > > >> > Other
> > > >> > > > > > JUnit5
> > > >> > > > > > > features we can use with additional imports. The
> problem can
> > > >> > appear
> > > >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > dynamic tests because we can not launch static and
> dynamic
> > > >> under
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > > > > surefire version. I made a preliminary migration on
> examples
> > > >> > module,
> > > >> > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > can take a look on it [4], but now it is still in work.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I tried to find some other JUnit5 features and added
> them to
> > > >> > IEP. If
> > > >> > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > miss
> > > >> > > > > > > something, please, let me now, we will also take it into
> > > >> account.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >  [1]
> > > >> https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/wiki/Core-Principles
> > > >> > > > > > >  [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10958
> > > >> > > > > > >  [3] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
> > > >> > > > > > >  [4] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5888
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:45, Павлухин Иван <
> > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >> > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Thank you for your efforts!
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > I checked a section "Motivation" in IEP and I think
> that we
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > > > more details there. You provided mostly examples of
> more
> > > >> > convenient
> > > >> > > > > > > > assertions. But there are other options to deal with
> it.
> > > >> E.g.
> > > >> > > > AssertJ
> > > >> > > > > > > > library [1] (I think that we can consider it even
> after
> > > >> > migration
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > junit5). It would be great if we can describe some
> junit5
> > > >> > features
> > > >> > > > > > > > which can make our life simpler and there is no
> alternative
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > junit4.
> > > >> > > > > > > > E.g. we have the similar Parameterized concept in
> junit4,
> > > >> so it
> > > >> > > > does
> > > >> > > > > > > > not look as a big win here.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Also, an impact on everyday development should be
> estimated.
> > > >> > As I
> > > >> > > > > > > > know, junit5 has a compatibility layer which allows to
> > > >> migrate
> > > >> > from
> > > >> > > > > > > > junit4 seamlessly. But as I understood you would like
> to use
> > > >> > new
> > > >> > > > > > > > junit5 features. And we have well-known
> GridAbstractTest
> > > >> which
> > > >> > > > > > > > historically was bound to junit3, now is bound to
> junit4.
> > > >> > Should we
> > > >> > > > > > > > change it significantly for junit5? Should we change
> other
> > > >> > existing
> > > >> > > > > > > > tests? Suites?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Could you please address my concerns?
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Let's discuss pros and cons. I will be happy to help
> there.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > [1] http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:07, Ivan Fedotov <
> > > >> > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you, access is fine.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > I have created the corresponding IEP [1].
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Now I am going to continue work on this. If
> somebody has
> > > >> any
> > > >> > > > > > suggestions
> > > >> > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > additions I am ready to discuss them.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 01:42, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >> > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Done, please check access now.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <
> > > >> > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you for the response.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > My wiki username is "ivanan", the related
> mailbox is
> > > >> > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > .
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:38, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > >> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Now admin service is unavailable (gives error
> 503).
> > > >> > I'll
> > > >> > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > rights
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > once
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > is up and running.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you share your wiki username? I can't
> find any
> > > >> > users
> > > >> > > > > who
> > > >> > > > > > > > signed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > up
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the wiki with any similar email/username
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:26, Ivan Fedotov <
> > > >> > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to formalize migration to
> JUnit5 and
> > > >> > create
> > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > >> > > > > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > include related issues.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I already started to work on one of the
> issues [1]
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > created a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > draft
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the corresponding IEP [2].
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, give me rights for confluence to
> create
> > > >> IEP.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > https://gist.github.com/1vanan/1f81319f1dc6d6ebca30c216fdd82759
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > > >
> > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >
> > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>


-- 
Ivan Fedotov.

ivanan639@gmail.com

Re: Migration to JUnit 5

Posted by Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>.

Ivan,

I think that it is a really good that you found those not tested
examples. Thank you!

пт, 5 июл. 2019 г. в 11:31, Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>:
>
> Ivan,
>
> I uncommented all tests referring to IGNITE-711 [1] in
> BasicExamplesSelfTest and all they passed.
>
> Generally, example tests are needed to be sure that our examples
> launch. And commented tests refer to existing examples. So, an ideal
> way here is to uncomment them in scope of IGNITE-711 [1], removal is
> not a good option. And I do not expect much problems here because we
> fully support Java 8 for a long time.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711
>
> пн, 1 июл. 2019 г. в 17:10, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi, Igniters
> >
> > During work on IEP-30, which is about JUnit migration, I found that some
> > tests in examples module were commented [1] with the remark, that they
> > should be fixed in the ticket IGNITE-711 [2] which is about the
> > implementation of Java 8 examples.
> >
> > In the context of the ticket IGNITE-10973 [3] I want to uncomment them and
> > mark as @Disabled. Is it really need to disable mentioned tests or I can
> > just remove them as outdated?
> >
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6606/files#diff-ed48193d25d777a2c30c187fa20a1a65L65
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973
> >
> >
> > вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 18:51, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Ivan,
> > > I will investigate GridAbstractTest refactoring issue more precisely when
> > > I finish with JUnit3Legacy classes. Anyway, I will keep in touch with you
> > > and the community on the most significant moments.
> > >
> > > JUnit5 docs say that functionality is not full "especially with regard to
> > > reporting". On the other hand, I also agree with docs that it is the
> > > easiest way that does not require to touch CI infrastructure. I am going to
> > > try @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction with features from IEP to
> > > make sure that we will have the full support of them. The alternative way
> > > is dynamic tests [1], but the problem is that we add methods to suites
> > > manually, not via @Test annotation. It is some kind of rollback to JUnit3
> > > syntax.
> > >
> > > Anton,
> > > thank you for the reminder, I will update IEP according to the
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
> > >
> > > вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 17:56, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Folks,
> > >>
> > >> Please make sure you keep IEP updated and each issue mentioned.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:28 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Ivan,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you for detailed answers! I would put a great care to
> > >> > @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction. As stated in junit5 docs
> > >> > [1] it does not support all features and unfortunately it is not clear
> > >> > how limited it is. Also, it is some kind of transitional mechanism
> > >> > which was not designed for being a long term solution.
> > >> >
> > >> > And I fully support an idea of refactoring GridAbstractTest. I think
> > >> > it is possible to make a significant improvement here.
> > >> >
> > >> > [1]
> > >> >
> > >> https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#running-tests-junit-platform-runner
> > >> >
> > >> > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 17:41, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hello Nikolay.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The prime benefits are more comfortable work with flaky tests, Java 8
> > >> > tests
> > >> > > compatibility, user-friendly syntaxis in parametrized tests and
> > >> others.
> > >> > > The most significant features list you can find in IEP-30 Motivation
> > >> > > section.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If you have any specific questions about JUnit5 feel free to ask me.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:55, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Hello, Ivan.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > May be I miss some mail - if yes, can you repeat it.
> > >> > > > What is advantages of migration from junit 4 to 5?
> > >> > > > Why we should do it?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:33, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Ivan,
> > >> > > > > That is my thoughts according to your questions.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 1. I tried to implement test suits with JUnit4 compatibility
> > >> layer.
> > >> > The
> > >> > > > > basic concept is to use @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
> > >> @SelectClasses
> > >> > > > > ({...})[1] and on
> > >> > > > > CI Ignite it works fine.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 2. According to @Rules, there are several ways to solve it:
> > >> > > > >     2.1 Leave JUnit4 code without changes. It will work because of
> > >> > > > Vintage
> > >> > > > > module
> > >> > > > >     2.2 Rewrite the @Rule as an Extension. The work of extension
> > >> is
> > >> > > > similar
> > >> > > > > to the @Rules work, but it is extracted in an Extension class.
> > >> > > > >     For more information about extensions, please, follow the IEP
> > >> > [2].
> > >> > > > > In my opinion, the easiest and the most understandable way is to
> > >> > leave
> > >> > > > > GridAbstractTest in current form. It will work with JUnit5
> > >> > > > > syntaxis and abilities.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 3. I faced a couple of problems during dealing with dynamic and
> > >> > static
> > >> > > > > tests in one project with JUnit5. The problem occurs with surefire
> > >> > > > version:
> > >> > > > > static tests work fine with 2.21x and earlier and with dynamic
> > >> > tests, the
> > >> > > > > situation is vice versa, it works with > 2.21x surefire version.
> > >> > > > > We can use helpful surefire dependency to use static tests with
> > >> the
> > >> > > > newest
> > >> > > > > surefire version [3], but dynamic tests become unavailable from
> > >> pure
> > >> > > > > Maven and accordingly from CI Ignite (from IDE all is fine).
> > >> > > > > I can suggest leaving this type of tests on JUnit4 on the current
> > >> > stage -
> > >> > > > > they are in the vast minority.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Let me comment on your side notes.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I am not against the stable and widely-used test library usage.
> > >> All I
> > >> > > > want
> > >> > > > > to say that it is not necessary in case of the main testing Ignite
> > >> > > > > framework (Junit) already provides the mentioned features.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > At the initial stage of improvements 3->4 I am planning to remove
> > >> > > > > JUnit3TestLegacyAssert, JUnit3TestLegacySupport classes. I guess
> > >> that
> > >> > > > > during this work
> > >> > > > > I will face with an issue that you are mentioned - turning
> > >> instance
> > >> > > > methods
> > >> > > > > to static. It is because of beforeTestsStarted and
> > >> afterTestsStarted
> > >> > > > > methods - I want to replace them by methods with BeforeAll,
> > >> AfterAll
> > >> > > > > annotations. But the point is that methods under such annotations
> > >> > must be
> > >> > > > > static. Just now I am not sure about fully removing
> > >> > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest class, but the need for static methods is a
> > >> > fact.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/85ba3a88d661bb05bbb749bd1feaf60cd9099ddc/examples/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/testsuites/IgniteExamplesSelfTestSuite.java#L59
> > >> > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
> > >> > > > > [3] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1778
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > вс, 24 февр. 2019 г. в 10:15, Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com
> > >> >:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Ivan,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Indeed junit5 has a lot of powerful features which can improve
> > >> > testing
> > >> > > > > > process.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > But first we should go through a migration process. There are
> > >> > several
> > >> > > > > > items which looks quite challenging.
> > >> > > > > > 1. Test suites support. Correct me if I am missed it, but I have
> > >> > not
> > >> > > > > > found a concept of test suites similar to junit3/4 ones. CI in
> > >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > heavily depends on test suites. Is there an alternative in
> > >> junit5?
> > >> > > > > > 2. The majority of our tests extend GridAbstractTest which in
> > >> fact
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > a core class in Ignite testing. Writing a test without extending
> > >> > it is
> > >> > > > > > not a good idea. Currently it employs number of junit4 concepts,
> > >> > e.g.
> > >> > > > > > test rules which as I saw are not supported in junit5. So, it
> > >> > sounds
> > >> > > > > > that some changes in GridAbstractTest need to be done. During
> > >> > > > > > migration from junit 3 to 4 GridAbstractTest used kind of
> > >> mimicry,
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > > > can be used as a base class for junit3 and junit4 tests at the
> > >> same
> > >> > > > > > time. How can we address transitional period now?
> > >> > > > > > 3. Also we have bunch of tests using our home-brewed
> > >> > parametrization.
> > >> > > > > > You can find them by searching usages of
> > >> > > > > > ConfigVariationsTestSuiteBuilder. This part was rather tricky
> > >> > during
> > >> > > > > > migration to junit4.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Do we have a plan for all these items?
> > >> > > > > > ----
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Couple of side notes.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Regarding dependencies minimization. Actually, I think it is
> > >> > important
> > >> > > > > > for junit itself as a library. Many libraries try to minimize
> > >> > > > > > dependency. In Ignite we do so as well. But in my opinion it is
> > >> not
> > >> > > > > > the case in context of libraries used during testing. If we have
> > >> > > > > > useful, stable and widely-used test library which can improve
> > >> our
> > >> > > > > > processes why should not we use it?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Regarding removing leftovers left after junit 3->4 migration.
> > >> > > > > > Actually, I think that GridAbstractTest and
> > >> GridCommonAbstractTest
> > >> > can
> > >> > > > > > be refactored in order to simplify further development and
> > >> > migration
> > >> > > > > > to new testing framework. For example, there are a lot of
> > >> instance
> > >> > > > > > methods which can be turned to static methods. Various
> > >> > start/stopGrid
> > >> > > > > > methods fall into this category. They can be extracted into some
> > >> > > > > > utility class and imported statically. Perhaps, after number of
> > >> > such
> > >> > > > > > refactoring we will be able to write tests without extending
> > >> > > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > пт, 22 февр. 2019 г. в 18:33, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> >:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hi Ivan!
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >  Junit5 differs from JUnit4 not so strong as 4 from 3
> > >> version. Of
> > >> > > > > course,
> > >> > > > > > > we can use AssertJ and other libraries, but it is more
> > >> > comfortable to
> > >> > > > > > > use functionality from the box. Moreover, the JUnit team
> > >> provides
> > >> > > > > strong
> > >> > > > > > > support for its products and it is the core JUnit principle -
> > >> > > > minimize
> > >> > > > > > > third-party dependency [1].
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >  According to Parameterized tests, it has several cons in
> > >> JUnit4:
> > >> > > > > > >  1. Test classes use fields and constructors to define
> > >> > parameters,
> > >> > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > > make tests more verbose
> > >> > > > > > >  2. It requires a separate test class for each method being
> > >> > tested.
> > >> > > > > > >  In JUnit5 it has a simplified parameter syntax and supports
> > >> > multiple
> > >> > > > > > > data-set source types, including CSV and annotation
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >  Impact on daily test development does not so differ from
> > >> > development
> > >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > JUnit4. We also can use annotations to mark methods as tests,
> > >> but
> > >> > > > some
> > >> > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > > annotations have
> > >> > > > > > > different names - you can see it in the ticket description
> > >> [2].
> > >> > You
> > >> > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > use those annotations and different import, but these are
> > >> minor
> > >> > > > > changes.
> > >> > > > > > >  We can change suites from static to dynamic tests [3], but I
> > >> am
> > >> > not
> > >> > > > > sure
> > >> > > > > > > that it is necessary. If you have any arguments in favor of
> > >> > dynamic
> > >> > > > > > tests,
> > >> > > > > > > I am ready to discuss them.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >  Now I see that changes in GridAbstractTest are not required.
> > >> > Only
> > >> > > > > > > improvements in JUnit 3->4 migration, which were given in IEP.
> > >> > Other
> > >> > > > > > JUnit5
> > >> > > > > > > features we can use with additional imports. The problem can
> > >> > appear
> > >> > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > dynamic tests because we can not launch static and dynamic
> > >> under
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > > > > surefire version. I made a preliminary migration on examples
> > >> > module,
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > can take a look on it [4], but now it is still in work.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I tried to find some other JUnit5 features and added them to
> > >> > IEP. If
> > >> > > > I
> > >> > > > > > miss
> > >> > > > > > > something, please, let me now, we will also take it into
> > >> account.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >  [1]
> > >> https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/wiki/Core-Principles
> > >> > > > > > >  [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10958
> > >> > > > > > >  [3] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
> > >> > > > > > >  [4] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5888
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:45, Павлухин Иван <
> > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >> > >:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Thank you for your efforts!
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > I checked a section "Motivation" in IEP and I think that we
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > > > more details there. You provided mostly examples of more
> > >> > convenient
> > >> > > > > > > > assertions. But there are other options to deal with it.
> > >> E.g.
> > >> > > > AssertJ
> > >> > > > > > > > library [1] (I think that we can consider it even after
> > >> > migration
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > junit5). It would be great if we can describe some junit5
> > >> > features
> > >> > > > > > > > which can make our life simpler and there is no alternative
> > >> in
> > >> > > > > junit4.
> > >> > > > > > > > E.g. we have the similar Parameterized concept in junit4,
> > >> so it
> > >> > > > does
> > >> > > > > > > > not look as a big win here.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Also, an impact on everyday development should be estimated.
> > >> > As I
> > >> > > > > > > > know, junit5 has a compatibility layer which allows to
> > >> migrate
> > >> > from
> > >> > > > > > > > junit4 seamlessly. But as I understood you would like to use
> > >> > new
> > >> > > > > > > > junit5 features. And we have well-known GridAbstractTest
> > >> which
> > >> > > > > > > > historically was bound to junit3, now is bound to junit4.
> > >> > Should we
> > >> > > > > > > > change it significantly for junit5? Should we change other
> > >> > existing
> > >> > > > > > > > tests? Suites?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Could you please address my concerns?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Let's discuss pros and cons. I will be happy to help there.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > [1] http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:07, Ivan Fedotov <
> > >> > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you, access is fine.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > I have created the corresponding IEP [1].
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Now I am going to continue work on this. If somebody has
> > >> any
> > >> > > > > > suggestions
> > >> > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > > > > additions I am ready to discuss them.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 01:42, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >> > dpavlov@apache.org
> > >> > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Done, please check access now.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <
> > >> > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you for the response.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > My wiki username is "ivanan", the related mailbox is
> > >> > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > > .
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:38, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > >> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Now admin service is unavailable (gives error 503).
> > >> > I'll
> > >> > > > add
> > >> > > > > > rights
> > >> > > > > > > > > > once
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > is up and running.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you share your wiki username? I can't find any
> > >> > users
> > >> > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > > > signed
> > >> > > > > > > > > > up
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the wiki with any similar email/username
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:26, Ivan Fedotov <
> > >> > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to formalize migration to JUnit5 and
> > >> > create
> > >> > > > > IEP
> > >> > > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > include related issues.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I already started to work on one of the issues [1]
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > > created a
> > >> > > > > > > > > > draft
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the corresponding IEP [2].
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, give me rights for confluence to create
> > >> IEP.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > https://gist.github.com/1vanan/1f81319f1dc6d6ebca30c216fdd82759
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ivan Fedotov.
> > >
> > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ivan Fedotov.
> >
> > ivanan639@gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: Migration to JUnit 5

Posted by Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>.

Ivan,

I uncommented all tests referring to IGNITE-711 [1] in
BasicExamplesSelfTest and all they passed.

Generally, example tests are needed to be sure that our examples
launch. And commented tests refer to existing examples. So, an ideal
way here is to uncomment them in scope of IGNITE-711 [1], removal is
not a good option. And I do not expect much problems here because we
fully support Java 8 for a long time.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711

пн, 1 июл. 2019 г. в 17:10, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi, Igniters
>
> During work on IEP-30, which is about JUnit migration, I found that some
> tests in examples module were commented [1] with the remark, that they
> should be fixed in the ticket IGNITE-711 [2] which is about the
> implementation of Java 8 examples.
>
> In the context of the ticket IGNITE-10973 [3] I want to uncomment them and
> mark as @Disabled. Is it really need to disable mentioned tests or I can
> just remove them as outdated?
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6606/files#diff-ed48193d25d777a2c30c187fa20a1a65L65
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973
>
>
> вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 18:51, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Ivan,
> > I will investigate GridAbstractTest refactoring issue more precisely when
> > I finish with JUnit3Legacy classes. Anyway, I will keep in touch with you
> > and the community on the most significant moments.
> >
> > JUnit5 docs say that functionality is not full "especially with regard to
> > reporting". On the other hand, I also agree with docs that it is the
> > easiest way that does not require to touch CI infrastructure. I am going to
> > try @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction with features from IEP to
> > make sure that we will have the full support of them. The alternative way
> > is dynamic tests [1], but the problem is that we add methods to suites
> > manually, not via @Test annotation. It is some kind of rollback to JUnit3
> > syntax.
> >
> > Anton,
> > thank you for the reminder, I will update IEP according to the
> > conversation.
> >
> > [1] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
> >
> > вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 17:56, Anton Vinogradov <av...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> Please make sure you keep IEP updated and each issue mentioned.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:28 PM Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ivan,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for detailed answers! I would put a great care to
> >> > @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction. As stated in junit5 docs
> >> > [1] it does not support all features and unfortunately it is not clear
> >> > how limited it is. Also, it is some kind of transitional mechanism
> >> > which was not designed for being a long term solution.
> >> >
> >> > And I fully support an idea of refactoring GridAbstractTest. I think
> >> > it is possible to make a significant improvement here.
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >> https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#running-tests-junit-platform-runner
> >> >
> >> > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 17:41, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hello Nikolay.
> >> > >
> >> > > The prime benefits are more comfortable work with flaky tests, Java 8
> >> > tests
> >> > > compatibility, user-friendly syntaxis in parametrized tests and
> >> others.
> >> > > The most significant features list you can find in IEP-30 Motivation
> >> > > section.
> >> > >
> >> > > If you have any specific questions about JUnit5 feel free to ask me.
> >> > >
> >> > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:55, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hello, Ivan.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > May be I miss some mail - if yes, can you repeat it.
> >> > > > What is advantages of migration from junit 4 to 5?
> >> > > > Why we should do it?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:33, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Ivan,
> >> > > > > That is my thoughts according to your questions.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 1. I tried to implement test suits with JUnit4 compatibility
> >> layer.
> >> > The
> >> > > > > basic concept is to use @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class)
> >> @SelectClasses
> >> > > > > ({...})[1] and on
> >> > > > > CI Ignite it works fine.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2. According to @Rules, there are several ways to solve it:
> >> > > > >     2.1 Leave JUnit4 code without changes. It will work because of
> >> > > > Vintage
> >> > > > > module
> >> > > > >     2.2 Rewrite the @Rule as an Extension. The work of extension
> >> is
> >> > > > similar
> >> > > > > to the @Rules work, but it is extracted in an Extension class.
> >> > > > >     For more information about extensions, please, follow the IEP
> >> > [2].
> >> > > > > In my opinion, the easiest and the most understandable way is to
> >> > leave
> >> > > > > GridAbstractTest in current form. It will work with JUnit5
> >> > > > > syntaxis and abilities.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 3. I faced a couple of problems during dealing with dynamic and
> >> > static
> >> > > > > tests in one project with JUnit5. The problem occurs with surefire
> >> > > > version:
> >> > > > > static tests work fine with 2.21x and earlier and with dynamic
> >> > tests, the
> >> > > > > situation is vice versa, it works with > 2.21x surefire version.
> >> > > > > We can use helpful surefire dependency to use static tests with
> >> the
> >> > > > newest
> >> > > > > surefire version [3], but dynamic tests become unavailable from
> >> pure
> >> > > > > Maven and accordingly from CI Ignite (from IDE all is fine).
> >> > > > > I can suggest leaving this type of tests on JUnit4 on the current
> >> > stage -
> >> > > > > they are in the vast minority.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Let me comment on your side notes.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I am not against the stable and widely-used test library usage.
> >> All I
> >> > > > want
> >> > > > > to say that it is not necessary in case of the main testing Ignite
> >> > > > > framework (Junit) already provides the mentioned features.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > At the initial stage of improvements 3->4 I am planning to remove
> >> > > > > JUnit3TestLegacyAssert, JUnit3TestLegacySupport classes. I guess
> >> that
> >> > > > > during this work
> >> > > > > I will face with an issue that you are mentioned - turning
> >> instance
> >> > > > methods
> >> > > > > to static. It is because of beforeTestsStarted and
> >> afterTestsStarted
> >> > > > > methods - I want to replace them by methods with BeforeAll,
> >> AfterAll
> >> > > > > annotations. But the point is that methods under such annotations
> >> > must be
> >> > > > > static. Just now I am not sure about fully removing
> >> > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest class, but the need for static methods is a
> >> > fact.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [1]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/85ba3a88d661bb05bbb749bd1feaf60cd9099ddc/examples/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/testsuites/IgniteExamplesSelfTestSuite.java#L59
> >> > > > > [2]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
> >> > > > > [3] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1778
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > вс, 24 февр. 2019 г. в 10:15, Павлухин Иван <vololo100@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Ivan,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Indeed junit5 has a lot of powerful features which can improve
> >> > testing
> >> > > > > > process.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > But first we should go through a migration process. There are
> >> > several
> >> > > > > > items which looks quite challenging.
> >> > > > > > 1. Test suites support. Correct me if I am missed it, but I have
> >> > not
> >> > > > > > found a concept of test suites similar to junit3/4 ones. CI in
> >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > heavily depends on test suites. Is there an alternative in
> >> junit5?
> >> > > > > > 2. The majority of our tests extend GridAbstractTest which in
> >> fact
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > a core class in Ignite testing. Writing a test without extending
> >> > it is
> >> > > > > > not a good idea. Currently it employs number of junit4 concepts,
> >> > e.g.
> >> > > > > > test rules which as I saw are not supported in junit5. So, it
> >> > sounds
> >> > > > > > that some changes in GridAbstractTest need to be done. During
> >> > > > > > migration from junit 3 to 4 GridAbstractTest used kind of
> >> mimicry,
> >> > it
> >> > > > > > can be used as a base class for junit3 and junit4 tests at the
> >> same
> >> > > > > > time. How can we address transitional period now?
> >> > > > > > 3. Also we have bunch of tests using our home-brewed
> >> > parametrization.
> >> > > > > > You can find them by searching usages of
> >> > > > > > ConfigVariationsTestSuiteBuilder. This part was rather tricky
> >> > during
> >> > > > > > migration to junit4.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Do we have a plan for all these items?
> >> > > > > > ----
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Couple of side notes.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Regarding dependencies minimization. Actually, I think it is
> >> > important
> >> > > > > > for junit itself as a library. Many libraries try to minimize
> >> > > > > > dependency. In Ignite we do so as well. But in my opinion it is
> >> not
> >> > > > > > the case in context of libraries used during testing. If we have
> >> > > > > > useful, stable and widely-used test library which can improve
> >> our
> >> > > > > > processes why should not we use it?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Regarding removing leftovers left after junit 3->4 migration.
> >> > > > > > Actually, I think that GridAbstractTest and
> >> GridCommonAbstractTest
> >> > can
> >> > > > > > be refactored in order to simplify further development and
> >> > migration
> >> > > > > > to new testing framework. For example, there are a lot of
> >> instance
> >> > > > > > methods which can be turned to static methods. Various
> >> > start/stopGrid
> >> > > > > > methods fall into this category. They can be extracted into some
> >> > > > > > utility class and imported statically. Perhaps, after number of
> >> > such
> >> > > > > > refactoring we will be able to write tests without extending
> >> > > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > пт, 22 февр. 2019 г. в 18:33, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi Ivan!
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >  Junit5 differs from JUnit4 not so strong as 4 from 3
> >> version. Of
> >> > > > > course,
> >> > > > > > > we can use AssertJ and other libraries, but it is more
> >> > comfortable to
> >> > > > > > > use functionality from the box. Moreover, the JUnit team
> >> provides
> >> > > > > strong
> >> > > > > > > support for its products and it is the core JUnit principle -
> >> > > > minimize
> >> > > > > > > third-party dependency [1].
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >  According to Parameterized tests, it has several cons in
> >> JUnit4:
> >> > > > > > >  1. Test classes use fields and constructors to define
> >> > parameters,
> >> > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > make tests more verbose
> >> > > > > > >  2. It requires a separate test class for each method being
> >> > tested.
> >> > > > > > >  In JUnit5 it has a simplified parameter syntax and supports
> >> > multiple
> >> > > > > > > data-set source types, including CSV and annotation
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >  Impact on daily test development does not so differ from
> >> > development
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > JUnit4. We also can use annotations to mark methods as tests,
> >> but
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > annotations have
> >> > > > > > > different names - you can see it in the ticket description
> >> [2].
> >> > You
> >> > > > > have
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > use those annotations and different import, but these are
> >> minor
> >> > > > > changes.
> >> > > > > > >  We can change suites from static to dynamic tests [3], but I
> >> am
> >> > not
> >> > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > > that it is necessary. If you have any arguments in favor of
> >> > dynamic
> >> > > > > > tests,
> >> > > > > > > I am ready to discuss them.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >  Now I see that changes in GridAbstractTest are not required.
> >> > Only
> >> > > > > > > improvements in JUnit 3->4 migration, which were given in IEP.
> >> > Other
> >> > > > > > JUnit5
> >> > > > > > > features we can use with additional imports. The problem can
> >> > appear
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > dynamic tests because we can not launch static and dynamic
> >> under
> >> > one
> >> > > > > > > surefire version. I made a preliminary migration on examples
> >> > module,
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > can take a look on it [4], but now it is still in work.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I tried to find some other JUnit5 features and added them to
> >> > IEP. If
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > > > miss
> >> > > > > > > something, please, let me now, we will also take it into
> >> account.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >  [1]
> >> https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/wiki/Core-Principles
> >> > > > > > >  [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10958
> >> > > > > > >  [3] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests
> >> > > > > > >  [4] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5888
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:45, Павлухин Иван <
> >> vololo100@gmail.com
> >> > >:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Thank you for your efforts!
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I checked a section "Motivation" in IEP and I think that we
> >> > should
> >> > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > more details there. You provided mostly examples of more
> >> > convenient
> >> > > > > > > > assertions. But there are other options to deal with it.
> >> E.g.
> >> > > > AssertJ
> >> > > > > > > > library [1] (I think that we can consider it even after
> >> > migration
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > junit5). It would be great if we can describe some junit5
> >> > features
> >> > > > > > > > which can make our life simpler and there is no alternative
> >> in
> >> > > > > junit4.
> >> > > > > > > > E.g. we have the similar Parameterized concept in junit4,
> >> so it
> >> > > > does
> >> > > > > > > > not look as a big win here.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Also, an impact on everyday development should be estimated.
> >> > As I
> >> > > > > > > > know, junit5 has a compatibility layer which allows to
> >> migrate
> >> > from
> >> > > > > > > > junit4 seamlessly. But as I understood you would like to use
> >> > new
> >> > > > > > > > junit5 features. And we have well-known GridAbstractTest
> >> which
> >> > > > > > > > historically was bound to junit3, now is bound to junit4.
> >> > Should we
> >> > > > > > > > change it significantly for junit5? Should we change other
> >> > existing
> >> > > > > > > > tests? Suites?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Could you please address my concerns?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Let's discuss pros and cons. I will be happy to help there.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > [1] http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:07, Ivan Fedotov <
> >> > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you, access is fine.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I have created the corresponding IEP [1].
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Now I am going to continue work on this. If somebody has
> >> any
> >> > > > > > suggestions
> >> > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > additions I am ready to discuss them.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 01:42, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> > dpavlov@apache.org
> >> > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Done, please check access now.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <
> >> > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you for the response.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > My wiki username is "ivanan", the related mailbox is
> >> > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > .
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:38, Dmitriy Pavlov <
> >> > > > > dpavlov@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Now admin service is unavailable (gives error 503).
> >> > I'll
> >> > > > add
> >> > > > > > rights
> >> > > > > > > > > > once
> >> > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is up and running.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you share your wiki username? I can't find any
> >> > users
> >> > > > > who
> >> > > > > > > > signed
> >> > > > > > > > > > up
> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the wiki with any similar email/username
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:26, Ivan Fedotov <
> >> > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to formalize migration to JUnit5 and
> >> > create
> >> > > > > IEP
> >> > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > include related issues.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I already started to work on one of the issues [1]
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > created a
> >> > > > > > > > > > draft
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the corresponding IEP [2].
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, give me rights for confluence to create
> >> IEP.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > https://gist.github.com/1vanan/1f81319f1dc6d6ebca30c216fdd82759
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Ivan Fedotov.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Ivan Fedotov.
> >> > >
> >> > > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ivan Fedotov.
> >
> > ivanan639@gmail.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Ivan Fedotov.
>
> ivanan639@gmail.com



-- 
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin