Changing Ants own test to use JUnit5 does not mean we have to change Ant itself
and don't have to cut a release.
What do you want to move to "ant-legacy"?
Jan
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Gintautas Grigelionis [mailto:g.grigelio...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 20
IMHO that would mean putting parts of Ant core into ant-legacy.jar
Gintas
2018-05-03 19:03 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :
> Yes, I'm definitely suggesting/hyping JUnit 5. :)
>
Yes, I'm definitely suggesting/hyping JUnit 5. :)
On 3 May 2018 at 12:01, Gintautas Grigelionis
wrote:
> My focus was on maximising the use of JUnit 4 idioms.
> Are you suggesting a switch to JUnit 5 instead?
> Sounds like Ant 1.11 :-)
>
> Gintas
>
> 2018-05-03 17:12 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :
>
>
My focus was on maximising the use of JUnit 4 idioms.
Are you suggesting a switch to JUnit 5 instead?
Sounds like Ant 1.11 :-)
Gintas
2018-05-03 17:12 GMT+02:00 Matt Sicker :
> I've started using JUnit 5 in a personal project and found that it has a
> lot more useful features for test parameters
I've started using JUnit 5 in a personal project and found that it has a
lot more useful features for test parameters. For instance, they now
support parameterized test methods instead of just the class itself. There
are also more convenient ways of injecting test data through annotations
and such.
2018-05-03 11:06 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig :
>
> I'm still not sure I understand which benefit you see by retrofitting
> tests that have been written before @Parameterized was invented. They do
> contain way too many asserts in a single test method, but all of them
> pass, so this is somewhat moot a
On 2018-04-30, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
> 2018-04-30 13:13 GMT+00:00 Stefan Bodewig :
>> On 2018-04-30, Gintautas Grigelionis wrote:
>>> the overarching goal, however, is to reduce verbosity, because
>>> verbosity makes it easier to hide mistakes.
>> This is your goal and we should have deci
