You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> on 2006/02/11 21:28:01 UTC
testing....testng?
Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng
into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test (as
well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
features:
-) Using assertions : The testng runtime checks for assert errors, so our
reliance on extending base classes becomes much less needed..ie:
assertEquals(foo.getValue(), 1);
turns into
assert foo.getValue() == 1 : "Foo didn't equal 1"; //or just assert
foo.getValue() == 1;
-) Annotations, well I think everyone knows the benefit to this. But the
additionally nice thing here is that your method names don't need to drive
any part about how your tests are run. The setup/teardown logic could go
away for more friendly uses of configuration, the least of which is being
able to say new things like run my method:
beforeSuite/beforeTestClass/beforeTestMethod/etc..
Also, grouping and "dependsOnMethod" semantics allow a whole new level of
control.
-) Is completely happy to run all junit tests.
-) Supported in the maven2 core by yours truly.
-) We have commit access to it which will give instant gratification to
anyone disliking/wanting some feature. (though I doubt this will come up)
It's not a huge deal for me, it's just something that is nice to have. I
won't add the dependency in unless I get an ok for it as it is impactual on
our daily happiness and I certainly don't want to add something in that will
become an annoyance for anyone.
jesse
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kevin!
Sorry to comment about TestNG on the Tapestry list, but you might
guess that this thread caught my attention :-).
I thought I have addressed the @Factory problem: it's quite impossible
to handle: in case your real test is already marked as @Test than you
might finally decide to run it either directly or through a @Factory.
However smart the plugin would be it would not be able to figure out
your intention ;-).
About the other one I cannot comment, because I am not sure what you
are refering too. Please let us know and we will try to figure out a
solution.
cheers,
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
TestNG: http://testng.org
On 2/12/06, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:16:07 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Just being curious, what caused the need for creating an xml file? Only
> > because of my recent interactions.
>
> Two issues that have been rather annoying for me is the failure for the
> plug-in to properly detect @Factory. Rather than use the factory to
> invoke instances of a particular class, the plugin attempts to create a
> copy of the class with arbitrary parameters, which will almost certainly
> cause the test to fail.
>
> The other issue is that it won't detect any classes that don't have @Test
> somewhere in the class. Thus, if you like to build a test hierarchy using
> template methods, your subclasses won't run.
>
> Both issues seem to have gone away when I provided my own testng.xml file,
> but that was more work than I really wanted to do. It also makes it
> difficult to right-click on a class to run just that class.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Ahehe. Thanks Alexendru :)
On 2/14/06, Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Addressed the issue. Apologise Tapestry :-).
>
> ./alex
> --
> .w( the_mindstorm )p.
>
> On 2/13/06, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:24:57 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is it really breaking the java annotation spec if you do a search on
> > > super
> > > classes as well?
> > >
> > > Either way I understand the frustration but don't think I can help if
> the
> > > two core devs already voted -1 on this feature. Hmmm...
> >
> > Well, the issue I raised in this thread is actually a bit different from
> > what you saw on the TestNG list. Since Alexandru responded separately
> > here, I'll try to clarify the issue for him a bit more. Like I said, at
> > least they're responsive :-)
> >
> > See http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/TESTNG-19 for more details. The
> > initial report was based on my misunderstanding of how the annotations
> > worked, but there still is a problem with using template methods. The
> > example there is weak, so I'll provide a stronger one.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Alexandru Popescu <th...@gmail.com>.
Addressed the issue. Apologise Tapestry :-).
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
On 2/13/06, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:24:57 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Is it really breaking the java annotation spec if you do a search on
> > super
> > classes as well?
> >
> > Either way I understand the frustration but don't think I can help if the
> > two core devs already voted -1 on this feature. Hmmm...
>
> Well, the issue I raised in this thread is actually a bit different from
> what you saw on the TestNG list. Since Alexandru responded separately
> here, I'll try to clarify the issue for him a bit more. Like I said, at
> least they're responsive :-)
>
> See http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/TESTNG-19 for more details. The
> initial report was based on my misunderstanding of how the annotations
> worked, but there still is a problem with using template methods. The
> example there is weak, so I'll provide a stronger one.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:24:57 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is it really breaking the java annotation spec if you do a search on
> super
> classes as well?
>
> Either way I understand the frustration but don't think I can help if the
> two core devs already voted -1 on this feature. Hmmm...
Well, the issue I raised in this thread is actually a bit different from
what you saw on the TestNG list. Since Alexandru responded separately
here, I'll try to clarify the issue for him a bit more. Like I said, at
least they're responsive :-)
See http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/TESTNG-19 for more details. The
initial report was based on my misunderstanding of how the annotations
worked, but there still is a problem with using template methods. The
example there is weak, so I'll provide a stronger one.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
I poked around the mailing lists and found the discussion regarding
annotation inheritance. I don't believe I'm familiar enough with the
semantics to know what to say.
Is it really breaking the java annotation spec if you do a search on super
classes as well?
Either way I understand the frustration but don't think I can help if the
two core devs already voted -1 on this feature. Hmmm...
On 2/12/06, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:16:07 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Just being curious, what caused the need for creating an xml file? Only
> > because of my recent interactions.
>
> Two issues that have been rather annoying for me is the failure for the
> plug-in to properly detect @Factory. Rather than use the factory to
> invoke instances of a particular class, the plugin attempts to create a
> copy of the class with arbitrary parameters, which will almost certainly
> cause the test to fail.
>
> The other issue is that it won't detect any classes that don't have @Test
> somewhere in the class. Thus, if you like to build a test hierarchy using
> template methods, your subclasses won't run.
>
> Both issues seem to have gone away when I provided my own testng.xml file,
> but that was more work than I really wanted to do. It also makes it
> difficult to right-click on a class to run just that class.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:16:07 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Just being curious, what caused the need for creating an xml file? Only
> because of my recent interactions.
Two issues that have been rather annoying for me is the failure for the
plug-in to properly detect @Factory. Rather than use the factory to
invoke instances of a particular class, the plugin attempts to create a
copy of the class with arbitrary parameters, which will almost certainly
cause the test to fail.
The other issue is that it won't detect any classes that don't have @Test
somewhere in the class. Thus, if you like to build a test hierarchy using
template methods, your subclasses won't run.
Both issues seem to have gone away when I provided my own testng.xml file,
but that was more work than I really wanted to do. It also makes it
difficult to right-click on a class to run just that class.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Hehehehe...I think I remember reading something somewhere about smarter
people being a little more picky about which information they allow their
brains to fill up with..Otherwise you only know a little bit about a lot of
things.
If it's any consolation I started off with xml file definitions as well.
On 2/12/06, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe I missed something; it just seemed easier to specify an XML file
> as a suite, but I can look into labeling tests as groups and seeing if
> that works. I'd prefer less XML (my new crusade).
>
> The point of side projects like ePluribus is for me to figure these
> things out. Normally, I'm epxected to know everything about every Java
> technology in existence.
>
> About three years, I did a talk about HiveMind at a JUG and from the
> back of the audience this one guy stands up and proclaims: "Please
> explain why you chose not to base the descriptors on YAML". As if
> everyone knew what YAML was.
>
> On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just being curious, what caused the need for creating an xml file? Only
> > because of my recent interactions.
> >
> > I can say at the very least that in maven2, unless you have some weird
> > runtime DataProvider stuff to setup there is actually 0 configuration
> that
> > needs to be done. Unless you wanted only a certain set of classes to be
> run?
> > But then, why not use groups to specify the classes instead of inviduals
> > themselves? No idea what you environment is like, but would love to know
> of
> > any issues beforehand.
> >
> > On 2/11/06, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:28:01 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating
> testng
> > > > into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
> > > >
> > > > The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit
> test
> > > > (as
> > > > well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional
> useful
> > > > features:
> > >
> > > IMHO, the Eclipse plug-in has some ways to go before it's really
> useful,
> > > unless you're willing to handcraft a TestNG XML file. I've filed some
> > > bugs in their JIRA and Alexandru has even addressed some of the
> issues, so
> > > that's cool. Just something to be aware of. With that being said,
> I'm
> > > not a Tapestry dev, so it's ultimately up to you guys.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
Maybe I missed something; it just seemed easier to specify an XML file
as a suite, but I can look into labeling tests as groups and seeing if
that works. I'd prefer less XML (my new crusade).
The point of side projects like ePluribus is for me to figure these
things out. Normally, I'm epxected to know everything about every Java
technology in existence.
About three years, I did a talk about HiveMind at a JUG and from the
back of the audience this one guy stands up and proclaims: "Please
explain why you chose not to base the descriptors on YAML". As if
everyone knew what YAML was.
On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just being curious, what caused the need for creating an xml file? Only
> because of my recent interactions.
>
> I can say at the very least that in maven2, unless you have some weird
> runtime DataProvider stuff to setup there is actually 0 configuration that
> needs to be done. Unless you wanted only a certain set of classes to be run?
> But then, why not use groups to specify the classes instead of inviduals
> themselves? No idea what you environment is like, but would love to know of
> any issues beforehand.
>
> On 2/11/06, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:28:01 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng
> > > into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
> > >
> > > The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test
> > > (as
> > > well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
> > > features:
> >
> > IMHO, the Eclipse plug-in has some ways to go before it's really useful,
> > unless you're willing to handcraft a TestNG XML file. I've filed some
> > bugs in their JIRA and Alexandru has even addressed some of the issues, so
> > that's cool. Just something to be aware of. With that being said, I'm
> > not a Tapestry dev, so it's ultimately up to you guys.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Just being curious, what caused the need for creating an xml file? Only
because of my recent interactions.
I can say at the very least that in maven2, unless you have some weird
runtime DataProvider stuff to setup there is actually 0 configuration that
needs to be done. Unless you wanted only a certain set of classes to be run?
But then, why not use groups to specify the classes instead of inviduals
themselves? No idea what you environment is like, but would love to know of
any issues beforehand.
On 2/11/06, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:28:01 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng
> > into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
> >
> > The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test
> > (as
> > well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
> > features:
>
> IMHO, the Eclipse plug-in has some ways to go before it's really useful,
> unless you're willing to handcraft a TestNG XML file. I've filed some
> bugs in their JIRA and Alexandru has even addressed some of the issues, so
> that's cool. Just something to be aware of. With that being said, I'm
> not a Tapestry dev, so it's ultimately up to you guys.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:28:01 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng
> into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
>
> The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test
> (as
> well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
> features:
IMHO, the Eclipse plug-in has some ways to go before it's really useful,
unless you're willing to handcraft a TestNG XML file. I've filed some
bugs in their JIRA and Alexandru has even addressed some of the issues, so
that's cool. Just something to be aware of. With that being said, I'm
not a Tapestry dev, so it's ultimately up to you guys.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Fair enough. Brett has assured me that despite being snowed in he will be
applying the patches needed for maven2, so I'll post an update once that is
all official.
On 2/12/06, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Parallel thinking ... I've been using testng for ePluribus and liking
> it a lot. I don't have any objections, it's just an issue about
> setting up the build properly. I think the HiveMind conversion to
> Maven2 as a dry run, then a Tapestry conversion to Maven2.
>
> On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > P.S. This is what the new maven2 surefire report should more or less
> look
> > like (notice the main diff being the hide/unhide of exception data)
> >
> > http://testng.org/doc/samplereport/index.html
> >
> > On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating
> testng
> > > into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
> > >
> > > The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test
> (as
> > > well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
> > > features:
> > >
> > > -) Using assertions : The testng runtime checks for assert errors, so
> our
> > > reliance on extending base classes becomes much less needed..ie:
> > >
> > > assertEquals(foo.getValue(), 1);
> > >
> > > turns into
> > >
> > > assert foo.getValue () == 1 : "Foo didn't equal 1"; //or just assert
> > > foo.getValue() == 1;
> > >
> > >
> > > -) Annotations, well I think everyone knows the benefit to this. But
> the
> > > additionally nice thing here is that your method names don't need to
> drive
> > > any part about how your tests are run. The setup/teardown logic could
> go
> > > away for more friendly uses of configuration, the least of which is
> being
> > > able to say new things like run my method:
> > >
> > > beforeSuite/beforeTestClass/beforeTestMethod/etc..
> > >
> > > Also, grouping and "dependsOnMethod" semantics allow a whole new level
> of
> > > control.
> > >
> > > -) Is completely happy to run all junit tests.
> > >
> > > -) Supported in the maven2 core by yours truly.
> > >
> > > -) We have commit access to it which will give instant gratification
> to
> > > anyone disliking/wanting some feature. (though I doubt this will come
> up)
> > >
> > > It's not a huge deal for me, it's just something that is nice to have.
> I
> > > won't add the dependency in unless I get an ok for it as it is
> impactual on
> > > our daily happiness and I certainly don't want to add something in
> that will
> > > become an annoyance for anyone.
> > >
> > > jesse
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
Parallel thinking ... I've been using testng for ePluribus and liking
it a lot. I don't have any objections, it's just an issue about
setting up the build properly. I think the HiveMind conversion to
Maven2 as a dry run, then a Tapestry conversion to Maven2.
On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> P.S. This is what the new maven2 surefire report should more or less look
> like (notice the main diff being the hide/unhide of exception data)
>
> http://testng.org/doc/samplereport/index.html
>
> On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng
> > into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
> >
> > The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test (as
> > well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
> > features:
> >
> > -) Using assertions : The testng runtime checks for assert errors, so our
> > reliance on extending base classes becomes much less needed..ie:
> >
> > assertEquals(foo.getValue(), 1);
> >
> > turns into
> >
> > assert foo.getValue () == 1 : "Foo didn't equal 1"; //or just assert
> > foo.getValue() == 1;
> >
> >
> > -) Annotations, well I think everyone knows the benefit to this. But the
> > additionally nice thing here is that your method names don't need to drive
> > any part about how your tests are run. The setup/teardown logic could go
> > away for more friendly uses of configuration, the least of which is being
> > able to say new things like run my method:
> >
> > beforeSuite/beforeTestClass/beforeTestMethod/etc..
> >
> > Also, grouping and "dependsOnMethod" semantics allow a whole new level of
> > control.
> >
> > -) Is completely happy to run all junit tests.
> >
> > -) Supported in the maven2 core by yours truly.
> >
> > -) We have commit access to it which will give instant gratification to
> > anyone disliking/wanting some feature. (though I doubt this will come up)
> >
> > It's not a huge deal for me, it's just something that is nice to have. I
> > won't add the dependency in unless I get an ok for it as it is impactual on
> > our daily happiness and I certainly don't want to add something in that will
> > become an annoyance for anyone.
> >
> > jesse
> >
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: testing....testng?
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
P.S. This is what the new maven2 surefire report should more or less look
like (notice the main diff being the hide/unhide of exception data)
http://testng.org/doc/samplereport/index.html
On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any strong feelings about possibly incorporating testng
> into some of the 4.1 unit tests?
>
> The good part about this is that testng can happily run any junit test (as
> well as the eclipse plugin), along with a number of additional useful
> features:
>
> -) Using assertions : The testng runtime checks for assert errors, so our
> reliance on extending base classes becomes much less needed..ie:
>
> assertEquals(foo.getValue(), 1);
>
> turns into
>
> assert foo.getValue () == 1 : "Foo didn't equal 1"; //or just assert
> foo.getValue() == 1;
>
>
> -) Annotations, well I think everyone knows the benefit to this. But the
> additionally nice thing here is that your method names don't need to drive
> any part about how your tests are run. The setup/teardown logic could go
> away for more friendly uses of configuration, the least of which is being
> able to say new things like run my method:
>
> beforeSuite/beforeTestClass/beforeTestMethod/etc..
>
> Also, grouping and "dependsOnMethod" semantics allow a whole new level of
> control.
>
> -) Is completely happy to run all junit tests.
>
> -) Supported in the maven2 core by yours truly.
>
> -) We have commit access to it which will give instant gratification to
> anyone disliking/wanting some feature. (though I doubt this will come up)
>
> It's not a huge deal for me, it's just something that is nice to have. I
> won't add the dependency in unless I get an ok for it as it is impactual on
> our daily happiness and I certainly don't want to add something in that will
> become an annoyance for anyone.
>
> jesse
>