Surefire and TestNG versions

[Dan Fabulich <da...@fabulich.com>]

Brett Porter wrote:

> 4.7, 5.1 and 5.5 tend to be used now. It would be good to retain compat with 
> them if possible. BTW, 5.6 and 5.7 are now in the repo.

Looking more closely at the code, I find that the code asserts that it 
supports 4.7 and higher.

I've got an integration test written (not yet checked in) that runs a 
minimal TestNG suite with every version of TestNG present on central from 
4.7 on up.  (4.7, 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7)

I find that my TestNG 5.0 and 5.0.1 ITs fail as no tests are run.  5.0.2 
works, and so do all of the other versions listed.

I've filed SUREFIRE-375 on this.  But would we ever fix it?

-Dan

Re: Surefire and TestNG versions

[Alexandru Popescu ☀ <th...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 20, 2007 1:42 AM, Dan Fabulich <da...@fabulich.com> wrote:
> Alexandru Popescu ☀ wrote:
>
> > I am gonna compare again the trunk with my last version and see if any
> > of my old changes got in. If not then I will have to wait for more news
> > from Brett. In case my previous changes have been incorporated in the
> > trunk, then I guess I will be able to work on it in the next couple of
> > days.
>
> Can you point me towards those old changes?  I might be able to
> incorporate them (once I feel like the tests look a bit better) if that'd
> be helpful.
>
> -Dan

The changes are on some special SVN location:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/sandbox/branches/surefire/apopescu

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.

Re: Surefire and TestNG versions

[Dan Fabulich <da...@fabulich.com>]

Alexandru Popescu ☀ wrote:

> I am gonna compare again the trunk with my last version and see if any 
> of my old changes got in. If not then I will have to wait for more news 
> from Brett. In case my previous changes have been incorporated in the 
> trunk, then I guess I will be able to work on it in the next couple of 
> days.

Can you point me towards those old changes?  I might be able to 
incorporate them (once I feel like the tests look a bit better) if that'd 
be helpful.

-Dan

Re: Surefire and TestNG versions

[Alexandru Popescu ☀ <th...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 20, 2007 12:54 AM, Dan Fabulich <da...@fabulich.com> wrote:
> Alexandru Popescu ☀ wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is a complex issue to fix it. However, I am missing
> > the details on what source code I should work. And also what would be
> > the process (as you already know the old one wasn't the perfect one :)
> > ).
>
> I think it makes the most sense for you to be able to check-in to Surefire
> trunk.  I think Brett said he was working on getting check-in rights for
> you, but getting check-in rights can take some time.  (Not exactly certain
> what to do in the meantime...?)
>
> In my opinion, at this point, I don't think it's really clear to me what
> bugs need to be fixed, except that Surefire itself needs more tests.  I'm
> working on doing that with an eye towards assessing the quality of
> Surefire and getting to the point where we could decide what needs work.
> (See other remarks in the surefire-dev archives for more details on that.)
>

Dan having tests will help a lot. I am NOT a maven user and for me it
will be extremely hard to guarantee that everything works, so your
help will be really appreciated.


I am gonna compare again the trunk with my last version and see if any
of my old changes got in. If not then I will have to wait for more
news from Brett. In case my previous changes have been incorporated in
the trunk, then I guess I will be able to work on it in the next
couple of days.

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.

> -Dan

Re: Surefire and TestNG versions

[Dan Fabulich <da...@fabulich.com>]

Alexandru Popescu ☀ wrote:

> I don't think it is a complex issue to fix it. However, I am missing
> the details on what source code I should work. And also what would be
> the process (as you already know the old one wasn't the perfect one :)
> ).

I think it makes the most sense for you to be able to check-in to Surefire 
trunk.  I think Brett said he was working on getting check-in rights for 
you, but getting check-in rights can take some time.  (Not exactly certain 
what to do in the meantime...?)

In my opinion, at this point, I don't think it's really clear to me what 
bugs need to be fixed, except that Surefire itself needs more tests.  I'm 
working on doing that with an eye towards assessing the quality of 
Surefire and getting to the point where we could decide what needs work. 
(See other remarks in the surefire-dev archives for more details on that.)

-Dan

Re: Surefire and TestNG versions

[Alexandru Popescu ☀ <th...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 20, 2007 12:36 AM, Dan Fabulich <da...@fabulich.com> wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
> > 4.7, 5.1 and 5.5 tend to be used now. It would be good to retain compat with
> > them if possible. BTW, 5.6 and 5.7 are now in the repo.
>
> Looking more closely at the code, I find that the code asserts that it
> supports 4.7 and higher.
>
> I've got an integration test written (not yet checked in) that runs a
> minimal TestNG suite with every version of TestNG present on central from
> 4.7 on up.  (4.7, 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.0.2, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7)
>
> I find that my TestNG 5.0 and 5.0.1 ITs fail as no tests are run.  5.0.2
> works, and so do all of the other versions listed.
>
> I've filed SUREFIRE-375 on this.  But would we ever fix it?
>

I don't think it is a complex issue to fix it. However, I am missing
the details on what source code I should work. And also what would be
the process (as you already know the old one wasn't the perfect one :)
).

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.

> -Dan
>