Re: [jboss-dev] JUnit should not attempt to instantiate/run unit test classes defined as abstract, thoughts?

Hi, Let's say you define an abstract unit test class which is contains test methods that are run for concrete implementations, i.e.: class abstract MyAbstractTestCase { void test000(){} void test001(){} } class YourConcreteTestCase extends MyAbstractTestCase {} class HisConcreteTestCase extends MyAbstractTestCase {} If you have a filter to run tests ending in *TestCase, JUnit will try to run all 3 classes: MyAbstractTestCase, YourConcreteTestCase, HisConcreteTestCase, i.e. test000 for MyAbstractTestCase test001 for MyAbstractTestCase test000 for YourConcreteTestCase test001 for YourConcreteTestCase test000 for HisConcreteTestCase test001 for HisConcreteTestCase An abstract class is, amongst other things, a class that can't be instantiated. Why does JUnit attempt to (doing something funky, that's for sure) go against the Java rules and try to execute an abstract unit test class? I'd expect YourConcreteTestCase and HisConcreteTestCase to be executed as they're concrete implementations. Of couse, this can easily be avoided by renaming the Abstract class to something that does not end in *TestCase, but why should I? I defined it as abstract, do not instantiate it :) Cheers,