[BUILD-394] Validate test execution with JUnit5 for modules Created: 09/Jun/20  Updated: 19/Nov/20  Resolved: 10/Nov/20

Status: Closed
Project: Build
Component/s: Poms
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Task Priority: Neutral
Reporter: Mikaël Geljić Assignee: Aleksandr Pchelintcev
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: junit5
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
Relates
relates to BUILD-414 Consider managing test dependencies o... Closed
relates to BUILD-293 Configure surefire dependencies to su... Closed
dependency
is depended upon by MGNLUI-6300 Migrate FakeMagnoliaUI to Junit5 Closed
Template:
Acceptance criteria:
Empty
Task DoR:
Empty
Date of First Response:
Epic Link: Basic JUnit 5
Sprint: TE 13, TE 14
Story Points: 2

 Description   
which engine to use?
  • using the vintage engine to start with (no test code updates foreseen, but maybe test dependencies) (auto-brought by surefire 3.0.0-M5 / BUILD-396).
    • no need to specify the engine explicitly once surefire 3.0.0.M5 is in use.
JUnit 4 deprecation strategy
  • consider managing "only" JUnit 5 from now on in BOM? (or BOM 6.3?)
    • in future BOM versions - sounds better, right now the overhead would be too huge for the modules.
    • test bom - consider extracting all the test dependencies into a separate bill of materials with a potentially more rapid update cadence (Java versions, library updates in minor releases etc) (BUILD-414)
Ensure best possible parent pom config for JUnit 5
  • adjust surefire config in parent poms to suit JUnit 5 best
    • surefire by default seamlessly supports both flavors, do we need an extra action?
    • should we rather consider pimping the boms to bring JUnit 5 compatible Mockito/Hamcrest? (UPD: actually JUnit 5 tests work just fine with Mockito 1, no need for urgent action).
  • make sure CE/bundles can still execute tests in isolation and w/ parallel forked exec (for old UI tests)


 Comments   
Comment by Šimon Demočko [ 10/Nov/20 ]

Is the PR irrelevant and can be declined?

Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 19/Nov/20 ]

sdemocko can be declined now that PPOMs 40 are out (as per Sasha's comment), but could be merged too for the sake of the example!

Generated at Sun Feb 11 23:41:31 CET 2024 using Jira 9.4.2#940002-sha1:46d1a51de284217efdcb32434eab47a99af2938b.