-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.1k
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
Parallel execution definitions of tests are ignored #849
Comments
In Play 2.1.x, we introduced forking tests being enabled by default, this was to solve some classloader leaks we were having caused by third party libraries for people that run console for a long time and execute the tests many times. The SBT documentation on forked tests: http://www.scala-sbt.org/0.12.3/docs/Detailed-Topics/Testing Says that all tests in a particular fork group are run in serial, but you can configure multiple groups to fork multiple JVMs. Alternatively, you can:
And this will run the tests in the SBT JVM in parallel. |
It seems
parameters in |
Hello have anyone got it to work, I've searched and tried all the settings still cannot configure parallel test execution |
Play ignores SBT test configuration settings like
parallelExecution in Test := true
or test grouping, or defined limits likeTags.limit(Tags.Test, 3)
.It's not clear (especially not for a Java developer) and undocumented how to execute tests parallel, even if it's possible somehow. Here is an example Build.scala that defines the tests running in multiple JVMs & multiple threads, but all the tests running in a single JVM in a single thread instead.
I use JUnit as my testing framework.
I put this line into each tests to test whether the tests run in parallel or not:
I understand that certain tests cannot be run parallel (E.g. more than one TestServer in a single JVM or more than one TestServer in multiple JVMs that listens on the same port) but it doesn't mean that parallel execution should be disabled for all kind of tests.
@Gissues:{"order":35.89743589743585,"status":"backlog"}
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: