[vote] replace surefire and surefire plugin trunk with test NG branches

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I've been doing the revolutionary thing with surefire. The branch is now
 working for pojo, junit and testNG tests, under all 3 fork modes. Some
other bugs have been fixed, the surefire and junit classloaders are
separate to avoid plexus-utils and junit version clashes (this doesn't
happen for test ng yet), and the test suite runners are now in the
provider structure so you don't have to use testng if you don't want (or
even junit if you want to run pojo tests using the assert keyword).

The code has been heavily refactored, so I'd like folks to review and
test it and vote on whether it should replace the previous trunk. I
think its a lot more readable now, but that might just be me :) If
something you think is required is missing, or something in the new
design doesn't seem right, now is the best time to address it.

[ ] +1
[ ] 0
[ ] -1

>From me, +1.

Cheers,
Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: [vote] replace surefire and surefire plugin trunk with test NG branches

[Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>]

BTW, to those testing it:
a) add this to your POM
<pluginRepositories>
  <pluginRepository>
    <id>apache.snapshots</id>
    <url>http://cvs.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository</url>
  </pluginRepository>
</pluginRepositories>
<repositories>
  <repository>
    <id>apache.snapshots</id>
    <url>http://cvs.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository</url>
  </repository>
</repositories>

b) build it. But make sure you use -Dmaven.test.skip=true the first time
on surefire itself as the old plugin tries to use the new classes which
don't match.

Cheers,
Brett

Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've been doing the revolutionary thing with surefire. The branch is now
>  working for pojo, junit and testNG tests, under all 3 fork modes. Some
> other bugs have been fixed, the surefire and junit classloaders are
> separate to avoid plexus-utils and junit version clashes (this doesn't
> happen for test ng yet), and the test suite runners are now in the
> provider structure so you don't have to use testng if you don't want (or
> even junit if you want to run pojo tests using the assert keyword).
> 
> The code has been heavily refactored, so I'd like folks to review and
> test it and vote on whether it should replace the previous trunk. I
> think its a lot more readable now, but that might just be me :) If
> something you think is required is missing, or something in the new
> design doesn't seem right, now is the best time to address it.
> 
> [ ] +1
> [ ] 0
> [ ] -1
> 
>>>From me, +1.
> 
> Cheers,
> Brett
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: [vote] replace surefire and surefire plugin trunk with test NG branches

[Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>]

Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've been doing the revolutionary thing with surefire. The branch is now
>  working for pojo, junit and testNG tests, under all 3 fork modes. Some
> other bugs have been fixed, the surefire and junit classloaders are
> separate to avoid plexus-utils and junit version clashes (this doesn't
> happen for test ng yet), and the test suite runners are now in the
> provider structure so you don't have to use testng if you don't want (or
> even junit if you want to run pojo tests using the assert keyword).
> 
> The code has been heavily refactored, so I'd like folks to review and
> test it and vote on whether it should replace the previous trunk. I
> think its a lot more readable now, but that might just be me :) If
> something you think is required is missing, or something in the new
> design doesn't seem right, now is the best time to address it.

Looks good to me and if the Maven bootstrap works and activemq-core then 
I think things should be fine. What do you think the best approach is 
for introducing the new code into the wild?

1) Let people test the new snapshot for a while and if nothing crops up 
release it?
2) Do a quick release of what's in trunk + 1)
3) Possibly bump the major number of the surefire plugin to match the 
bump in surefire on the trunk?

I would suggest having a period of a week to let people try it and if 
nothing is reported then perform the swap.

> [ ] +1
> [ ] 0
> [ ] -1
> 
>>>From me, +1.
> 
> Cheers,
> Brett
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org