Suite runner extensibility

[fhoeben]

These changes would allow much easier customization, to resolve #486

[fhoeben]

Can I get some feedback on this request? Any collaborator willing to merge this, or should I make additional changes, or do you believe it's a bad idea?

[amolenaar]

Hi,

What's the case for the abstract FitNesseRunner? Can this be merged back with FitNesseSuite (maybe use composition instead of inheritance to separate concerns).

Loosening the methods from package private to protected seems fine. I do like the test case.

[fhoeben]

My idea for the abstract base class was indeed to make a single class focus on actually running the tests and another on how to configure what to run.
I did consider composition but moving the annotations to a separate (new) configurator class would break existing code. I will have another close(r) look.

[fhoeben]

I've changed the FitNesseRunner to no longer be abstract, but to be a full replacement of FitNesseSuite, which I made deprecated. I also added tests to see that FitNesseSuite usage still works as before.

How do you feel about this?

[amolenaar]

Now we have a more sensible name for the junit runner. That makes sense.
The methods are now better accessible so you can create a specific subclass if you have to.
I think that's nice.

[fhoeben]

Does that mean you will merge it in?

[amolenaar]

Yup :)

Can you check the build (perform an "ant release"?). I get a compilation error when trying to compile your branch.

[fhoeben]

I found out I completely missed the 'test' directory for junit tests, sorry.
I moved my tests to this location and addressed the compilation problems.For me locally not all tests pass, but quite a few seem quite distant from my changes so I hope these are caused by an error in my setup...