Commits on Jun 19, 2013
  1. getAnnotatedMethodValues/Field return modifiable collection: no inter…

    …nal data to protect
    Tibor17 committed Jun 19, 2013
  2. Unnecessary array in varargs in AnnotatedBuildrer: Constructor#newIns…

    …tance(Object ... initargs)
    Tibor17 committed Jun 19, 2013
Commits on Jun 8, 2013
Commits on Jun 6, 2013
  1. Merge pull request #691 from noel-yap/filter-option

    Make compilable under Java 1.5.
    marcphilipp committed Jun 6, 2013
Commits on Jun 5, 2013
  1. Merge pull request #690 from noel-yap/filter-option

    Make compilable under Java 1.5.
    dsaff committed Jun 5, 2013
  2. add disclaimer and example

    awreece committed Jun 5, 2013
  3. Merge pull request #647 from noel-yap/filter-option

    --filter option implemented.
    dsaff committed Jun 5, 2013
Commits on Jun 4, 2013
Commits on Jun 3, 2013
Commits on May 28, 2013
  1. Merge pull request #659 from brettchabot/master

    Collect annotations for JUnit3 test methods.
    dsaff committed May 28, 2013
Commits on May 27, 2013
Commits on May 24, 2013
  1. Merge pull request #678 from marschall/epl

    Relicense JUnit from CPL to EPL
    dsaff committed May 24, 2013
Commits on May 23, 2013
  1. Merge pull request #680 from UrsMetz/fix-typo-in-method-rule-javadoc

    fix typo in javadoc for MethodRule
    dsaff committed May 23, 2013
Commits on May 22, 2013
  1. fix typo in javadoc

    UrsMetz committed May 22, 2013
Commits on May 19, 2013
  1. Relicense JUnit from CPL to EPL

    EPL is the successor version of the CPL this makes re-licensing
    possible without seeking the approval of all contributors.
    CPL is actively hurting JUnit adaptation, it the following cases the
    deciding factor against JUnit was CPL. In both cases EPL would have
    been fine.
    * Netbeans can't ship JUnit [4]
    * OpenJDK uses TestNG instead of JUnit [5]
    Mike Milinkovich from the Eclipse Foundation wrote [1]
    > Back in 2009, the CPL was superseded by the EPL. This means that the
    > EPL is the successor version of the CPL. It also means that using the
    > CPL is the licensing equivalent of using deprecated code.
    > Because the EPL is the successor version to the CPL, the "new version
    > re-licensing" clause in Section 7 of the CPL applies. In other words,
    > you can re-license your project without seeking the approval of all
    > of your contributors.
    > The CPL and EPL basically differ by about one sentence, which you can
    > see here. The difference relates to the scope of patent licenses
    > terminated should someone sue another party for patent infringement.
    > This is the kind of stuff that lawyers love, but most developers
    > don't really care about.
    On the migration from CPL to EPL Mike Milinkovich wrote [2]
    > There was a two step process that was followed to make this happen.
    > First, following the terms of the CPL, IBM assigned the
    > responsibility to serve as the Agreement Steward of the CPL to the
    > Eclipse Foundation. Second, the Eclipse Foundation officially
    > recognized the EPL 1.0 as the new version of the CPL 1.0. In OSI
    > license terminology, the EPL now supersedes the CPL.
    > A quick read of the two licenses will quickly show that they are very
    > very close. Other than their names and (previously) their Agreement
    > Stewards, the only substantive difference is the breadth of the
    > patent license termination in the event of a patent law suit. (See
    > the second paragraph of Section 7.) For more information on the
    > relationship between the CPL and the EPL see the EPL FAQ.
    You can find more information about the difference at [3].
    The new `LICENSE.txt` is based on a plain text version of the EPL with
    formatted so that the diff is a clean as possible.
    I'll submit another pull request for the gh-pages branch.
    marschall committed May 18, 2013
Commits on May 11, 2013
  1. // Guarded by fLock

    Tibor17 committed May 11, 2013
Commits on May 9, 2013
  1. Merge pull request #675 from avandeursen/compactfailuretest

    Test class for String Comparison Compactors, and off-by-one refactoring of compactor.
    dsaff committed May 9, 2013
Commits on May 8, 2013
  1. Refactoring ensuring fSuffix is equal to length of suffix.

    While fPrefix was equal to length of prefix, in old code
    fSuffix was equal to length of suffix + 1.
    Made the two consistent, resulting in simplification of suffix
    computation (removed "+ 1" four times, added "- 1" once).
    Found inconsistency through branch coverage analysis, which
    suggested that condition "fSuffix > 0" could never be false.
    avandeursen committed May 6, 2013
  2. Switching to a Parameterized test class.

    Added long pre/postfix test cases.
    All relevant test cases for message compacting included.
    Included tests cases from (old) ComparisonCompactorTest
    that are still relevant for current ComparisonFailure class.
    Added empty string boundary cases.
    Branch coverage back to normal.
    avandeursen committed May 5, 2013
  3. Created an initial test case for ComparisonFailures

    Partly Taken from the old junit.framework.ComparisonCompactorTest.
    Also added test cases for strings with common suffix/prefix.
    avandeursen committed May 8, 2013
Commits on May 6, 2013
Commits on May 2, 2013
  1. Cleaned up whitespace in JUnit38ClassRunner.

    Added a unit test.
    brettchabot committed May 2, 2013
Commits on May 1, 2013
Commits on Apr 30, 2013
  1. JavaDoc fixed.

    noel-yap committed Apr 30, 2013
Commits on Apr 29, 2013
Commits on Apr 18, 2013
  1. simplified ClassRequest

    Tibor17 committed Apr 18, 2013