CODED-285 - JUnit5

[Itamar C <it...@gmail.com>]

Just finished changing all tests to JUnit5 and dropped junit-vintage-engine
from pom.xml.

It's on PR #113.

I saw that there are another 8 PRs in the issue, I hope there are not too
many conflicts in there for the reviewer.

Any doubt about my changes, I'm here to answer.

(By the way, I just sent my ICLA to the Apache Foundation Secretary.)

Regards,

Itamar Carvalho


On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:09 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The same applies to changing access modifiers. JUnit 5 encourages use of
> package private everything as it’s the least typing and now supported (as
> in v5 will reflectively allow access to your test code if it’s not public).
>
> —
> Matt Sicker
>
> > On Feb 17, 2022, at 19:59, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:47 PM Itamar C <it...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <gi...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Which discussion (since this thread covered more than one subject)?
> >>> If you mean the "migration to Junit 5" task for [Codec], it's already
> >>> there.[1]
> >>> If you mean the method rename (to remove the "test" prefix), then
> >>> the "dev" ML is where to continue the discussion (and/or start a vote
> >>> if there is no clear agreement).
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Gilles
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I was talking about the method rename (to remove the "test" prefix).
> >> If this ML is the right place to continue the discussion or make a
> vote, ok
> >> then.
> >>
> >
> > I am opposed to changing hundreds if not thousands of methods names just
> > for cosmetic reasons, it is certainly not required to use JUnit 5.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Itamar
> >>
>

Re: CODED-285 - JUnit5

[John Patrick <nh...@gmail.com>]

If they are my PR's they cover;
) @Test(expected=xxx.class) to using assertThrows
) trying to use assertAll
) removing unused imports

As I've been having issues with large PR changes, I've been trying to do
smaller PR's with a single item, or test being changed.

John


On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 at 05:31, Itamar C <it...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just finished changing all tests to JUnit5 and dropped junit-vintage-engine
> from pom.xml.
>
> It's on PR #113.
>
> I saw that there are another 8 PRs in the issue, I hope there are not too
> many conflicts in there for the reviewer.
>
> Any doubt about my changes, I'm here to answer.
>
> (By the way, I just sent my ICLA to the Apache Foundation Secretary.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Itamar Carvalho
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:09 PM Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The same applies to changing access modifiers. JUnit 5 encourages use of
> > package private everything as it’s the least typing and now supported (as
> > in v5 will reflectively allow access to your test code if it’s not
> public).
> >
> > —
> > Matt Sicker
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 2022, at 19:59, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:47 PM Itamar C <it...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:16 PM Gilles Sadowski <
> gilleseran@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Which discussion (since this thread covered more than one subject)?
> > >>> If you mean the "migration to Junit 5" task for [Codec], it's already
> > >>> there.[1]
> > >>> If you mean the method rename (to remove the "test" prefix), then
> > >>> the "dev" ML is where to continue the discussion (and/or start a vote
> > >>> if there is no clear agreement).
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Gilles
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Hi.
> > >>
> > >> I was talking about the method rename (to remove the "test" prefix).
> > >> If this ML is the right place to continue the discussion or make a
> > vote, ok
> > >> then.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I am opposed to changing hundreds if not thousands of methods names
> just
> > > for cosmetic reasons, it is certainly not required to use JUnit 5.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Itamar
> > >>
> >
>