New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[SUREFIRE-1179] integration test #106
Conversation
@juherr |
Awesome! I should have time this week to close it. |
I had time to analyze and I found that
I can't say if this behavior is expected or if something should be done in TestNG. What do you think @cbeust? Another solution would be to update |
Since 5.10? |
Since 5.10, I'd like to add
in I've just tested by changing the value of dataproviderthreadcount in the test with 5 and 20, and it is working with the update I propose. |
Sometime code is easier than explainations :) I updated #105. Feel free to comment. |
All you need to do is to call this method with Java Reflection. Please be inspired by Then create Do not forget the license header and Javadoc on the top of your class, On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Julien Herr notifications@github.com
Cheers |
Is there the same principle with thread count for suites? On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Tibor Digana tibor.digana@googlemail.com
Cheers |
For my information, why not updating the testng dependency as I did it in #105? I'll try to add some tests for suite thread count. |
Because we were always dependent on 5.7 and the users may still rely on it. |
It's not a problem of time but I just want to understand what I'm doing. I'm talking about an compile dependency (scoped provided) where, as I understand, users will use the version they want. Am I missing something? |
Alright create |
The style with reflection is usually in junit provider, but you'r right, forget reflection in testng. |
There is already version range [5.3,6.4] you should split which means to split in |
@juherr I guess this was already merged in Version 2.19. You can close the pull-request. Thx |
@Tibor17 No, I can't! YOU created this pull-request ;) |
@juherr Sorry :), really it was me, sorry again 👍 |
for #105