[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 opened a new pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 opened a new pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox

rzo1 opened a new pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759


   # What does this PR do?
   
   This PR aims to provide a first **JUnit 5** OpenEJB Extension to be used within JUnit 5 tests. It comes without the transient compile dependency to **JUnit 4**.
   
   The idea originates from a :coffee: discussion with @mawiesne in one of our research projects.
   
   ## Details
   
   - Moves everything, which has no compile dependency towards JUnit 4 to a custom module
   - Implements some Junit 5 extensions to run OpenEJB-powered tests
   - Added migrated existing tests to the new module, which has a compile dependency towards JUnit 5
   
   # References
   
   - https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TOMEE/issues/TOMEE-2966


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] rmannibucau commented on pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox

rmannibucau commented on pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759#issuecomment-768446509


   Hi @rzo1 , from a quick review I got these points/questions but since I'm using way less TomEE it can not be relevant:
   
   1. junit-jupiter-api should be in scope provided to let user fully decide about the version (whatever transitive dep tree he has)
   2. you likely want @ExtendWtih to be replaced with @WithOpenEJB or whatever alias annotation you want
   3. This part of our testing is very rarely used so wonder if it shouldn't be skipped for junit5 in favor of application composer, EJBContainer and tomee embedded flavors which are likely more mainstream and require less boilerplate code and does not use the legacy InitialContext to start the container.
   
   Hope it helps a bit


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 commented on pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox
In reply to this post by GitBox

rzo1 commented on pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759#issuecomment-768449631


   Hi @rmannibucau ,
   
   thanks for the super fast feedback.
   
   1. I agree.
   2. This is a good idea!
   3. This is true, but we  have some users who use it in this (legacy) way, who want to migrate in a soft way without too much pain :)


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] rmannibucau commented on pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox
In reply to this post by GitBox

rmannibucau commented on pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759#issuecomment-768460797


   @rzo1 thinking out loud but if 3 is literally 'it is there we don't want to invest" maybe do a "openejb-junit5-backward" (name is aweful but I know awesome people to find name in the project ;)) which keep using openajb-junit - just as API - and just add the junit5 glue code excluding junit artifact. This seems matching more exactly this description and enables the project to make this part slowly dying to align the maintenance on the usage?


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 commented on pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox
In reply to this post by GitBox

rzo1 commented on pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759#issuecomment-768524737


   @rmannibucau Yup. It is indeed some sort of backward compatibility layer to enable users, who are using the legacy way, to easily switch to JUnit 5. The way via exclusion and using the existing module as is, is a good idea. This should reduce maintenance efforts and reduces complexity (one new module versus two ...).


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 edited a comment on pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox
In reply to this post by GitBox

rzo1 edited a comment on pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759#issuecomment-768524737


   @rmannibucau Yup. It is indeed some sort of backward compatibility layer to enable users, who are using the legacy way, to easily switch to JUnit 5. The way via exclusion and using the existing module as is, is a good idea. This should reduce maintenance efforts and reduces complexity (one new module versus two ...).
   
   I have just incorporated the feedback provided. Thanks.


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] exabrial commented on pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox
In reply to this post by GitBox

exabrial commented on pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759#issuecomment-769222943


   Love this! We converted to JUnit5 awhile back


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[GitHub] [tomee] rzo1 merged pull request #759: TOMEE-2966: Provide a pure JUnit5 OpenEJB Extension

GitBox
In reply to this post by GitBox

rzo1 merged pull request #759:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/759


   


----------------------------------------------------------------
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.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[hidden email]