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 <itam...@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 <boa...@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 <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:47 PM Itamar C <itam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:16 PM Gilles Sadowski < > gillese...@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 > > >> > > >
