Re: [DISCUSS] JUnit5 and parameterized testing

I'm also +1 on option 2. If there are no other objections, then I would go ahead and merge https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9161 at the end of the week. That should give people some time to add their feedback to the PR. Thanks Eduard On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 6:06 PM Jack Ye wrote: > Looking

Re: [DISCUSS] JUnit5 and parameterized testing

Looking at the referenced open issue on Junit5 side, it seems like at least the community is actively working on a @ParameterizedContainer solution. In that case I would +1 for option 2, since we have an easy path for moving to the official class-level annotation when that is ready. -Jack On Thu,

Re: [DISCUSS] JUnit5 and parameterized testing

Hi Ed, I like option 2, it simplifies the parameterized support. Just my $0.01 Regards JB On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 5:16 PM Eduard Tudenhoefner wrote: > Hey everyone, > > a while ago we (thanks to many contributors that helped here) started > migrating tests from JUnit4 to JUnit5. While most thi

[DISCUSS] JUnit5 and parameterized testing

Hey everyone, a while ago we (thanks to many contributors that helped here) started migrating tests from JUnit4 to JUnit5. While most things are straightforward to migrate, parameterized tests are not. JUnit5 doesn't support parameterization at the class level yet