Personally, I wonder why we don't merge them. Failsafe adds some lifestyle phase bindings and then changes some defaults. Otherwise, it's a giant anti-DRY. Why not expand surefire to have the extra executions with shifted defaults for things like test class names?
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Oliver B. Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: > @Paul: Yes I think so or we find a way more convenient in this moment. > > @all: I think this shows perfectly why Failsafe should be integrated as > Surefire already is. > > Oliver > > Am 28.10.14 16:02, schrieb Paul Benedict: >> >> Thanks. Now I know when to use this. For my situation, which is >> integration >> testing against an existing database, I don't need to setup an >> environment; >> this explains why I never needed to use the plugin. There are other cases >> the plugin will be valuable, but I wonder if this is why most others stick >> with surefire. I guess programmers don't scratch unless there's an itch. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The answer is on the index page of the failsafe plugin [1]. >>> "If you use the Surefire Plugin for running tests..." >>> >>> /Anders >>> >>> [1] http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/ >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> (to >>> [email protected]> >>> https://bitbucket.org/obfischer/bugreport-maven-failsafe.git >>> lot >>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
