[jbosstools-dev] Should we use @Ignore in non-runnable JUnit test classes, instead of <include> in pom?

[Nick Boldt]

PR attached to a JIRA:

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-19081
https://github.com/jbosstools/jbosstools-build/pull/167

Should we also exclude (by default) running integration tests? If so, 
what pattern should be excluded? *ITest*.class? *IntegrationTest*.class?

N

On 01/23/2015 02:08 PM, Alexey Kazakov wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 11:02 AM, Nick Boldt wrote:
>> TL;DR:
>>
>> I think this is what we've said we should do:
>>
>> 1. Use new default patterns in parent pom for JBDS 9 (and 8.1 too):
>
> Let's do it for 9 (master) only.
>
>>
>> 	include = *Test*, *Test, *TestCase
>> 	exclude = *Abstract*
>>
>> 2. If that causes test failures because running incorrectly named
>> abstract stuff, they can refactor, add their own root pom overrides, use
>> a TestSuite, or use @Ignore in test classes.
>>
>> 3. If the count of tests run suddenly DROPS because the pattern isn't
>> running the correct # of tests, they can add their own root pom
>> overrides, or use a TestSuite.
>>
>> So say we all?
>>
>> N
>>
>> On 01/23/2015 10:18 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>> On 23 Jan 2015, at 14:54, Fred Bricon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am so +∞ on dropping the current patterns
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if tycho’s default patterns are enough *Test*, *Test,
>>>> *TestCase
>>>> https://git.eclipse.org/c/tycho/org.eclipse.tycho.git/tree/tycho-surefire/tycho-surefire-plugin/src/main/java/org/eclipse/tycho/surefire/TestMojo.java#n149
>>>> <https://git.eclipse.org/c/tycho/org.eclipse.tycho.git/tree/tycho-surefire/tycho-surefire-plugin/src/main/java/org/eclipse/tycho/surefire/TestMojo.java#n149>
>>>>
>>>> 1) abstract classes are not run by default. So if you called an
>>>> AbstractFooTest class which is not abstract, it’s on you.
>>>> 2) when Eclipse JUnit runner runs on a projects/packages, containing
>>>> suites and individual classes, it’ll run tests from suites and
>>>> ignore (duplicate) individual tests. If it’s a core JUnit feature,
>>>> then it should behave the same in surefire. That needs to be verified
>>>> obviously
>>> Last I checked this surefire just uses the naming pattern - no smart
>>> filtering is done.
>>>
>>> The fact include/exclude is on *.class and not actual class/package
>>> names make me think that has not changed.
>>>
>>>
>>> /max
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Le 23 janv. 2015 à 08:38, Max Rydahl Andersen
>>>>> <max.andersen at redhat.com> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Jan 2015, at 20:51, Nick Boldt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can set your own <include> entries in your root pom. Then all
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> projects' tests will inherit those new rules.
>>>>> the intent of the parent pom is to avoid we have unnecessary
>>>>> duplication
>>>>> and conflicting approaches.
>>>>>
>>>>> So better if we can fix the parent pom if its not optimal than
>>>>> continue
>>>>> to get different
>>>>> additional unnecessary testing configs in the various pom's.
>>>>>
>>>>> /max
>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>>>>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>>>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>>
>>> /max
>>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>

-- 
Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
http://nick.divbyzero.com