ZiadMarey commented on issue #3488: URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/issues/3488#issuecomment-5810954929
Thanks for the detailed explanation — that matches our findings exactly, and explains precisely why our attempt to reproduce it by directly calling `matchClassName` in isolation didn't show the divergence (we never applied the `.java`-stripping preprocessing step to the pattern first). Answering your questions: **Effective `<includes>`/`<excludes>` for the affected module:** - No custom `<includes>`/`<excludes>` are configured for the execution that fails (bound to the `integration-test` goal) — it relies entirely on failsafe's built-in default patterns (`**/IT*.java`, `**/*IT.java`, `**/*ITCase.java`). - A separate execution in the same module does set an explicit include (`**/*E2E*.java`), but that one is unaffected since none of our failing classes match it. - No `<includesFile>`/`<excludesFile>` are used anywhere in the project. **Exact command line:** ``` mvn verify -Dit.test=com.example.its.java.SomeIT -DskipITs=false ... ``` i.e. a single fully-qualified class name (sometimes with `#methodName`), passed via `-Dit.test`, no wildcards or regex on our end. **Confirmation against your fix:** we built `maven-surefire-plugin`/`maven-failsafe-plugin` from your `master` branch locally (installed as `3.6.1-SNAPSHOT`) and re-ran our affected module against it. Discovery now works correctly — every test class we tried was found and attempted, where before all of them silently returned `Tests run: 0`: ``` Running com.example.its.java.SomeAIT -> Tests run: 1 Running com.example.its.java.SomeBIT -> Tests run: 1 Running com.example.its.java.SomeCIT -> Tests run: 1 Running com.example.its.java.SomeDIT -> Tests run: 1 Running com.example.its.java.SomeEIT -> Tests run: 1 ``` (Each subsequently hit an unrelated, pre-existing local environment issue on our end, which is expected and unrelated to discovery — the point is that discovery itself now succeeds for all of them, where it previously failed for all of them.) This confirms #3466 fixes our case. Looking forward to the 3.6.1 release — thank you for the quick and precise diagnosis. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
