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 2019/02/20 15:25:54 UTC
Migration to JUnit 5
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
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 just remove them as outdated?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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by 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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by 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 <vo...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by 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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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
>
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Павлухин Иван <vo...@gmail.com>.
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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by 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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by 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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <dp...@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
>
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by 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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <dp...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > Done, please check access now.
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Павлухин Иван <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <dp...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Done, please check access now.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <dp...@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 <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <dp...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Done, please check access now.
> > >
> > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <dp...@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 <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Павлухин Иван <vo...@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 <iv...@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 <dp...@apache.org>:
>
> > Done, please check access now.
> >
> > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <dp...@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 <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <dp...@apache.org>:
> Done, please check access now.
>
> ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <dp...@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 <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>.
Done, please check access now.
ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <dp...@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 <iv...@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
>
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Ivan Fedotov <iv...@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 <dp...@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 <iv...@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
Re: Migration to JUnit 5
Posted by Dmitriy Pavlov <dp...@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 <iv...@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
>