>>because Maven might just treat it as though it weren't set at all, and ignore
>>it.
One of our user pointed to the issue with empty property and I said it
is bug in Maven.
Somebody should fix it in Maven.
> The most useful of the three would be UNCATEGORIZED, so it can be combined
> with other
(after 300 minutes). Marking the build as aborted.
Build was aborted
Archiving artifacts
No prior successful build to compare, so performing full copy of artifacts
Finished: ABORTED
--
Cheers
Tibor
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/JUnit-categories-in-surefi
would like to propose that some special keywords be created
> > > which
> > > can represent:
> > > _ALL_, _NONE_, _UNCATEGORIZED_ (or similar)
> > >
> > > That way, users can do things like:
> > > my.special.Category,_UNCATEGORIZED_
> > &
ONE_
> > or
> > _NONE_
> > or
> > _ALL_
> >
> > These keywords may require some support from the underlying test
> > framework,
> > like JUnit, so I can understand if these keywords cannot happen.
> >
> > Even if the keywords cannot b
IZED_
> > _NONE_
> > or
> > _NONE_
> > or
> > _ALL_
> >
> > These keywords may require some support from the underlying test
> > framework,
> > like JUnit, so I can understand if these keywords cannot happen.
> >
> > Even if the keywo
se keywords cannot happen.
>
> Even if the keywords cannot be made to work, I still think it'd be good to
> deprecate-and-separate the properties for the two plugins, so they can be
> controlled independently with user properties.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> -
tl;dr - A proposal for config independence for groups/excludeGroups
properties and some special keywords for ALL, NONE, and UNCATEGORIZED
groups.
***
In the Apache Accumulo project, we're currently in process of trying to
make use of JUnit categories to separate different classes of tests.
So, w
