Skip to content
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

Enabling Surefire to run test classes and test methods in any order specified #2

Open
wants to merge 30 commits into
base: umaster
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

winglam
Copy link

@winglam winglam commented Mar 5, 2021

No description provided.

dfa1 and others added 29 commits April 16, 2019 18:59
…odRunOrder on command line) to choose order of methods. possible values include: unsorted (default, however junit would do it otherwise), alphabetical, reverse_alphabetical and random. New custom orders can be implemented in DefaultRunOrderCalculator class. Supports Junit4 and JUnit47 providers.
…run fixed order, tests to run can be passed in as a list from a file.
@winglam winglam changed the title Tms2 Enabling Surefire to run test classes and test methods in any order specified Mar 5, 2021
@@ -106,6 +264,52 @@ else if ( sortOrder != null )
}
}

private String parseFlakyTestOrder( String s )
{
if ( s != null && s != "" )

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I detect that this code is problematic. According to the Bad practice (BAD_PRACTICE), ES: Comparison of String objects using == or != (ES_COMPARING_STRINGS_WITH_EQ).
This code compares java.lang.String objects for reference equality using the == or != operators. Unless both strings are either constants in a source file, or have been interned using the String.intern() method, the same string value may be represented by two different String objects. Consider using the equals(Object) method instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants