-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add tests which exercise more complex JUnit extensions #35124
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
7c1512c
to
9fcf306
Compare
cfec5e8
to
ae760b6
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I think this is ready for review. There are some failures in Windows on tests that I touched, but I think @aloubyansky mentioned that he'd seen them in other builds? |
...ests/src/test/resources-filtered/projects/project-using-test-callback-from-extension/pom.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ests/src/test/resources-filtered/projects/project-using-test-callback-from-extension/pom.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ests/src/test/resources-filtered/projects/project-using-test-callback-from-extension/pom.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
<maven.compiler.release>17</maven.compiler.release> | ||
<project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding> | ||
<project.reporting.outputEncoding>UTF-8</project.reporting.outputEncoding> | ||
<surefire-plugin.version>3.0.0-M7</surefire-plugin.version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you could do the same as for the compiler plugin here.
...ests/src/test/resources-filtered/projects/project-using-test-callback-from-extension/pom.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ests/src/test/resources-filtered/projects/project-using-test-callback-from-extension/pom.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@holly-cummins it looks ok to me except points in the test poms, could you check please? |
579f27c
to
b74fb10
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
#35195 shows the same |
b74fb10
to
e34abf7
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
...on/tests/src/test/resources-filtered/projects/project-using-test-parameter-injection/pom.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ests/src/test/resources-filtered/projects/project-using-test-template-from-extension/pom.xml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ramework/devmode-test-utils/src/main/java/io/quarkus/test/devmode/util/DevModeTestUtils.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
e34c242
to
d86c2e5
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
d86c2e5
to
3abbf62
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
3abbf62
to
b850e90
Compare
… so all disabled) Co-Authored-By: Alexey Loubyansky <[email protected]>
b850e90
to
768f515
Compare
✔️ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully. It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary. |
We have several scenarios at the moment which don't work, and we don't have tests covering them. I've added (disabled) tests for these scenarios, in preparation for enabling them alongside a fix.
I wasn't totally sure what the best home was. I considered putting these tests in the maven project,
test-extension
, or in a new project dedicated to the test framework. In the end, I put them in the test-extension project, since it would often be extensions that were defining these kinds of JUnit extensions.What’s in this PR?
I've checked that when enabled, all of the tests fail for the expected reason. For example, the parameter test triggers a deep clone which can't succeed on Java 17+, so it fails with
I tried to add a test for #30317 (with an extension to bring in parent-first dependencies, a test application, and a test), but even on Quarkus 3.0.0.Alpha4, I couldn’t reproduce the original issue.
Wait, isn’t this change pointless since all the tests are disabled?
Well, sort of. But it’s a biiiiig changeset, and it would make #34681 even bigger if all this was included with all that. That would be no fun to review. Also, it’s useful to have a clean changeset in which I was able to confirm each new test failed if the implementation changes weren’t there.