@Martin Desruisseaux, >> Even if Maven wanted to be independent of JUnit 5... I know Surefire and JUnit5 quite well, no need to tell me, but I was not talking about technical things. I am talking about totally different topics, especially about good Surefire purpose and design with Providers, risk management and the whole globe of users. JUnit5 is not a principal shift.
- Supporting only JUnit5 f/w, deleting Provider API, deleting JUnit3 + 4 + TestNG is intentionally a bad idea. The thing happening now goes against the historical continuity because previous two developers left ASF. - The Surefire originators who designed the architecture had a good reasons to introduce Provider API, it is a good design. It separates concerns of the plugin from the concerns of test frameworks. Although the test frameworks have very similar Listeners, they are cohesive with Surefire Listener and this enables Maven + plugin to be independent of test framework implementation across vendors and versions and third party policies (pricing, license, SDLC) and this provides us with certain freedom meaning no coupling (technical coupling and team coupling) between Maven plugin and third party frameworks. >> Keeping direct support of JUnit 3 (as opposed to indirect support through JUnit 5 API) has a cost. No, this is not true. I was a developer of Surefire for many years and JUnit3 + POJO *Provider* was stable which means I did not need to touch it for quite a long time. This Provider is pretty simple for simple tests, and the positive is that the POJO does not require JUnit, this is good for lightweight test projects. >> Of course there is a risk that we break something. ... difficult to implement. It is not difficult to implement. I know Surefire like my shoes. My problem is that I left during Covid and the historical continuity with new developers was broken, that's my fault, I am honest now. If this did not happen then most probably Slawomir would continue straight ahead and others maybe too. Cheers Tibor On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 8:22 PM Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Tibor > > Even if Maven wanted to be independent of JUnit 5, Maven does not need > to invent its own test API. JUnit5 has a separation between API and > implementations, so it would be possible to use only the API part if > necessary (I don't think that it would be necessary, just mentioning > that we have this possibility). Therefore, a full switch to JUnit 5 > would not necessarily make us fully prisoner of JUnit 5. > > Keeping direct support of JUnit 3 (as opposed to indirect support > through JUnit 5 API) has a cost. For example, I saw requests on this > mailing list for testing the different versions of a multi-release JAR > file. Currently, any classes in META-INF/versions/* will be ignored at > testing time, because Surefire runs the tests with the `*.class` files > on the class-path while multi-release works only with JAR files. Last > Saturday, I wanted to start looking for the possibility of adding an > option for running the tests many times with different > `META-INF/versions/*` directories added to the class-path. It was not > easy to find my way in the Surefire code, and I rely a lot on the > simplification proposed by Romain before to make any other attempt. > > Of course there is a risk that we break something. But the example given > in the previous email (tests as POJO) should be easy to port. The > alternative (not removing direct JUnit 3 support) is more like freezing > the Surefire plugin: no accidental lost of feature, but also less new > features (e.g. easier testing of multi-release projects) because they > would be more difficult to implement. > > Martin > > > Le 07/10/2025 à 19:16, Tibor Digana a écrit : > > Romain, > > > > to be honest the JUnit guys always wanted to make their own business and > > monopoly over the testing phase in Maven, which means using JUnit5 only, > > that's it. > > > > I have been a JUnit4 developer since cca 2011 or so, and we know each > other. > > If I say business then I really mean business and not only the word. > > Defining report schema and forking mechanism JVMs in JUnit5, these are > > still the same competition problems between us, and I say it's about the > > monopoly, which means who takes the control over these things takes full > > control over Maven testing and then Maven becomes completely dependent on > > some test framework which is the risk for Maven. > > > > This is the main problem but you wouldn't see this unless you have spent > > years and years developing both parties as I have. > > > > Making Maven strictly dependent only on JUnit5 is the worst decision > > ever, I am telling you! > > Btw, experienced Maven guys must know what a strict dependency means and > > the consequences too. > > We are still in the loop for years with deleting something because > somebody > > has got a crazy idea in the morning, found out github/dev-factory or > > anything else, some tool or technology as many other, those tools which > > come and go every year. > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:09 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'd like to start a thread about potentially dropping surefire totally. > >> The rational is that surefire (and failsafe) are mainly an abstraction > >> layer on top of main test providers. > >> However, since JUnit5 the platform/engine is itself such an abstraction > >> layer and a runner. > >> > >> On another side, testng and junit4 are slowly getting abandonned - even > EE > >> TCK started to move. > >> > >> In terms of additional features we do have the maven site integratoin - > but > >> I doubt it is much used outside and to be honest it can be replaced > with a > >> github/dev-factory link with more benefit these days. > >> > >> So overall I think we can converge by dropping surefire plugin in favor > of > >> a thin wrapper of junit5 console runner ([1]). > >> > >> Short terms I'm sure Christian could help us getting something fast > based > >> on its implementation ([2] - including a small surefire compatibility > mode) > >> and long term it will reduce the maintenance cost we do have for a very > >> poor gain in current world (site and remoting are no more key features > >> thanks the CI and doc evolution). > >> > >> Wdyt? Is maven 4 the mometum to do it? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
