[
https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=352261#comment-352261
]
Gili commented on SUREFIRE-749:
-------------------------------
@Tibor,
I don't think asking the user to learn an entire new framework is a solution to
this problem. I understand that there are too many open issues for Surefire and
I sympathize and if there is enough demand for this issue then I think it is
worth proceeding.
You might want to take a look at http://stackoverflow.com/a/9192126/14731
because it shows that (1) there is some level of demand for this issue and (2)
there is a possible solution for JUnit which you could integrate into Surefire.
For TestNG, see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/testng-users/EcpY_ii-Qwc
> Parallel methods should run in separate classloaders
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SUREFIRE-749
> URL: https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-749
> Project: Maven Surefire
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Junit 4.7+ (parallel) support
> Affects Versions: 2.8.1
> Reporter: Gili
>
> When running in parallel-method or parallel-both mode, each @Test should run
> in its own ClassLoader. I'm running into a lot of problems involving the use
> of static variables in 3rd-party libraries. Here are two examples:
> 1. slf4j: http://bugzilla.slf4j.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176
> 2. guice: http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=635
> I believe running in isolated ClassLoaders would fix both problems and it
> makes a lot of sense from a test isolation point of view so we should do it
> anyway.
> I believe Surefire's forkMode is defined in terms of isolated JVMs instead of
> ClassLoaders. Furthermore, it only seems to support per-Class isolation
> instead of per-@Test isolation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.6#6162)
