[jira] [Updated] (SUREFIRE-1849) Cucumber/JUnit5 Test Execution Regression in M4 and M5
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1849?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jacques Burns updated SUREFIRE-1849: Description: My JUnit 5 Cucumber tests fail to execute properly when in Surefire version 3.0.0-M4 and 3.0.0-M5. Downgrading to 3.0.0-M3 solves the issue. I've built a small, complete example project demostrating the issue [https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce|https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce]. You can play with the version property in the `pom.xml` in my example and run the `test` goal In M4 and M5, the Cucumber glue is recognised and the step definitions are run, but failed assertions do not affect the outcome of the build. Also, true assertions do not count towards the "Tests run" statistic was: My JUnit 5 Cucumber tests fail to execute properly when in Surefire version 3.0.0-M4 and 3.0.0-M5. Downgrading to 3.0.0-M3 solves the issue. I've built a small, complete example project demostrating the issue [https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce.|https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce]. You can play with the version property in the `pom.xml` in my example and run the `test` goal In M4 and M5, the Cucumber glue is recognised and the step definitions are run, but failed assertions do not affect the outcome of the build. Also, true assertions do not count towards the "Tests run" statistic > Cucumber/JUnit5 Test Execution Regression in M4 and M5 > -- > > Key: SUREFIRE-1849 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1849 > Project: Maven Surefire > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Jacques Burns >Priority: Major > > My JUnit 5 Cucumber tests fail to execute properly when in Surefire version > 3.0.0-M4 and 3.0.0-M5. Downgrading to 3.0.0-M3 solves the issue. > I've built a small, complete example project demostrating the issue > [https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce|https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce]. > You can play with the version property in the `pom.xml` in my example and > run the `test` goal > > In M4 and M5, the Cucumber glue is recognised and the step definitions are > run, but failed assertions do not affect the outcome of the build. Also, true > assertions do not count towards the "Tests run" statistic -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Created] (SUREFIRE-1849) Cucumber/JUnit5 Test Execution Regression in M4 and M5
Jacques Burns created SUREFIRE-1849: --- Summary: Cucumber/JUnit5 Test Execution Regression in M4 and M5 Key: SUREFIRE-1849 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1849 Project: Maven Surefire Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Jacques Burns My JUnit 5 Cucumber tests fail to execute properly when in Surefire version 3.0.0-M4 and 3.0.0-M5. Downgrading to 3.0.0-M3 solves the issue. I've built a small, complete example project demostrating the issue [https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce.|https://github.com/jmathewburns/surefire-cucumber-junit5-sscce]. You can play with the version property in the `pom.xml` in my example and run the `test` goal In M4 and M5, the Cucumber glue is recognised and the step definitions are run, but failed assertions do not affect the outcome of the build. Also, true assertions do not count towards the "Tests run" statistic -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (MENFORCER-519) "BannedPluginDependencies" Rule
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MENFORCER-519?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17929449#comment-17929449 ] Jacques Burns commented on MENFORCER-519: - Right. In most cases, it really only matters that the dependency does not appear in the release artifact, or as a dependency to it. For this specific use case, though, my thinking was that a little bit of duplication was not the end of the world. If that's not the case, though, would you prefer to see it as a configuration option to the `BannedDependencies` rule? > "BannedPluginDependencies" Rule > --- > > Key: MENFORCER-519 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MENFORCER-519 > Project: Maven Enforcer Plugin > Issue Type: Wish > Components: Standard Rules >Reporter: Jacques Burns >Priority: Minor > > We ran into this issue at work where we had to prevent a certain JAR from > ever appearing in the local repository of our build server. I was thinking of > solving this with the Enforcer plugin, but it turns out that the JAR is also > a dependency of some of the Maven plugins we use, and the Enforcer plugin > doesn't check that. I realise it could probably be a custom rule, but maybe > there could be a general desire for that kind of functionality. > I'm willing to do the work on this and submit the PR, but first, is it > something you folks would like added? -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Updated] (MENFORCER-519) "BannedPluginDependencies" Rule
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MENFORCER-519?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jacques Burns updated MENFORCER-519: Description: We ran into this issue at work where we had to prevent a certain JAR from ever appearing in the local repository of our build server. I was thinking of solving this with the Enforcer plugin, but it turns out that the JAR is also a dependency of some of the Maven plugins we use, and the Enforcer plugin doesn't check that. I realise it could probably be a custom rule, but maybe there could be a general desire for that kind of functionality. I'm willing to do the work on this and submit the PR, but first, is it something you folks would like added? was: We ran into this issue at work where we had to prevent a certain JAR from ever appearing in the local repository of our build server. I was thinking of solving this with the Enforcer plugin, but it turns out that the JAR is also a dependency of some of the Maven plugins we use, and the Enforcer plugin doesn't check that. I'm willing to do the work on this and submit the PR, but first, is it something you folks would like added? > "BannedPluginDependencies" Rule > --- > > Key: MENFORCER-519 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MENFORCER-519 > Project: Maven Enforcer Plugin > Issue Type: Wish > Components: Standard Rules >Reporter: Jacques Burns >Priority: Minor > > We ran into this issue at work where we had to prevent a certain JAR from > ever appearing in the local repository of our build server. I was thinking of > solving this with the Enforcer plugin, but it turns out that the JAR is also > a dependency of some of the Maven plugins we use, and the Enforcer plugin > doesn't check that. I realise it could probably be a custom rule, but maybe > there could be a general desire for that kind of functionality. > I'm willing to do the work on this and submit the PR, but first, is it > something you folks would like added? -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
[jira] [Created] (MENFORCER-519) "BannedPluginDependencies" Rule
Jacques Burns created MENFORCER-519: --- Summary: "BannedPluginDependencies" Rule Key: MENFORCER-519 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MENFORCER-519 Project: Maven Enforcer Plugin Issue Type: Wish Components: Standard Rules Reporter: Jacques Burns We ran into this issue at work where we had to prevent a certain JAR from ever appearing in the local repository of our build server. I was thinking of solving this with the Enforcer plugin, but it turns out that the JAR is also a dependency of some of the Maven plugins we use, and the Enforcer plugin doesn't check that. I'm willing to do the work on this and submit the PR, but first, is it something you folks would like added? -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.10#820010)
