5619 Refactor unit tests with Parametrized class #5657
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…-improve-testing
landreev
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As part of this PR, I refactored several unit tests that can benefit from parametrized testing (as described in #5619). Some of the larger diffs occur due to nesting unchanged code inside an enclosed class to allow for parametrized testing, as was already done in #5636. Only the code in
*ParamTestsclasses has actually been changed.I have also added
junit-jupiter-paramsas a new test dependency, which would allow us to perform future parametrized testing based on JUnit 5 (as it seems that you have setup both systems in parallel).Related Issues
Pull Request Checklist