Provide dependency management for JUnit Jupiter

[eddumelendez]

No description provided.

[snicoll]

Now that's GA, perhaps we can promote that to spring-boot-dependencies. What do you think @wilkinsona?

[wilkinsona]

Good idea. Given that we have a sample and that Framework has first-class support for it, providing dependency management feels right to me.

[snicoll]

@eddumelendez are you willing to rework the PR?

[eddumelendez]

@snicoll Sure! it's done 😃

[kazuki43zoo]

Hi @snicoll and @wilkinsona,

I have one question.
Have you plan to change the default dependency artifact to the Junit Jupiter(JUnit 5 based) instead of the Junit 4 on the spring-boot-starter-test?

[philwebb]

@kazuki43zoo Most probably not in Spring Boot 2.0.

[snicoll]

@kazuki43zoo please watch #6402 scratch that, this looks a duplicate :)

[kazuki43zoo]

@philwebb @snicoll

Thanks for your reply! I will watch #6402 .

[sbrannen]

Why would you include dependency management for the Launcher API if you're only focusing on the JUnit Jupiter API?

Most users won't need the Launcher API: it's typically only needed by build tools (e.g., Gradle and Maven) and IDEs.

I'm not saying you should necessarily remove the Launcher, but users will likely need the junit-vintage-engine in order to be able to run existing JUnit 4 and JUnit 3 tests alongside JUnit Jupiter tests (or alongside any other testing framework running on the JUnit Platform).

Plus, why not include a dependency on junit-jupiter-params as well (even if it's technically experimental)?

Food for thought...

- Sam

[wilkinsona]

Thanks, @sbrannen.

IMO, the dependency management that has been added is incomplete. The rule of thumb is that we manage all dependencies that are released together. In this case, I believe we should have dependency management for all of the Platform and all of Jupiter too (assuming that each is versioned and released as a whole.

[snicoll]

I agree it is incomplete and was expecting @wilkinsona to report that. However, I did remove params on purpose as it is marked experimental in JUnit's documentation. Not sure we should include such labeled artifact.

@wilkinsona some of those dependencies are used by plugins only so adding them to dependencyManagement would be actually useless.

[sbrannen]

@snicoll, thanks for the explanation regarding params.

I looked at your latest commit, and I understand the rationale for the changes. 👍