Provide a @FailAt annotation

[helpermethod]

Inspired by https://twitter.com/mikeveerman/status/1464162014444638258

It would be nice to provide an annotation that fails at a specified date, with on optional reason. Something like this:

@FailAt(date = "2022-01-01", reason = "An optional reason")
@Test
void should_fail_at_the_provided_date() {
    // ...
}

This could be a great way to remind oneself of unpaid technical debt but could probably also be used in other contexts.

[Michael1993]

What's the upside of the annotation over this one-liner:

assumeTrue(LocalDate.now().isBefore(2022,1,1), "An optional reason"); // or assertTrue if you want the test to fail, not abort

[Michael1993]

Hm, I guess, you could say that this assumption/assertion is meta - it's not really an assertion or assumption that is part of the test and therefore should be moved out from the method body? 🤔

[helpermethod]

@Michael1993 Exactly, IMHO it should be separate from the actual assertions.

An annotation would also give you a visual clue that this is something you need to be aware of, and makes searching for the existence of such tests simpler (e.g. by grepping for the annotation).

But maybe the annotation is too esoteric to be included in JUnit Pioneer 😄 .

[Michael1993]

But maybe the annotation is too esoteric to be included in JUnit Pioneer 😄 .

Not at all! Our @ReportEntry annotation uses the same reasoning (report entries are meta and not part of the test), so this would be a great fit for Pioneer.
Let me know if you want to implement this yourself or if we should go ahead and make it ourselves.

[helpermethod]

Hi @Michael1993,

I can take a stab at it 🙂!

[Bukama]

Hm I see this is the same as DisableUntil annotation #366.

edit: @Michael1993 explained me the difference.

[Bukama]

We talked about this at our last team meeting and want you to invite to take part in a discussion to think about this and similar use cases in a more global view.

Feel free to write down your thoughts and ideas in #550 - thank you!

[nipafx]

Since this seems to overlap a lot with #366 and #550, I'll close this as a duplicate. Feel free to comment of you disagree.

[nipafx]

Ooops, not so much of a duplicate after all. 😊 Still, let's first discuss in #550.