Add a JUnit 4 rule to skip tests #6445
Conversation
if code makes use of GenericContainer or any other TestContainer based rule then those rules will mostl likely throw an exception when docker is not available. This leads people to add a BeforeClass annotation and test for docker, however this does not skip the tests, it skips the class. This has the unfortuante side effect that the report (from thinks like maven surefire and ant) that the test did not run when ingested into tools like Jenkins (as zero tests from the class either passed failed or skipped). it is also not obvious on the command line. by using a rule the individual tests will be marked as skipped so it becomes obvious that a test existed, but did not run for some reason (and the reason will be in the exception - that docker is not available) fixes testcontainers#4586 / testcontainers#343
| } | ||
| * </code></pre> | ||
| */ | ||
| public class RequireContainerSupportRule implements TestRule { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I went round the houses on the name of this a few times - in reality not sure if you require docker (the cli) at all, or just a configuration for docker (which could come from podman etc.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can use docker, similar to what we have for Testcontainers annotation for JUnit Jupiter. See
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if DockerCheckRule make sense. I know naming is hard :)
| @Override | ||
| public void evaluate() throws Throwable { | ||
| throw new AssumptionViolatedException( | ||
| "Docker support is not available and this test requires TestContainers which needs docker" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could be Docker support... or Container support...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR, @jtnord ! As it was discussed via slack, a new junit4 module would be great for this implementation. Also, some docs would be appreciated.
| @Override | ||
| public void evaluate() throws Throwable { | ||
| throw new AssumptionViolatedException( | ||
| "Docker support is not available and this test requires TestContainers which needs docker" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "Docker support is not available and this test requires TestContainers which needs docker" | |
| "Docker is not available" | |
| } | ||
| * </code></pre> | ||
| */ | ||
| public class RequireContainerSupportRule implements TestRule { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can use docker, similar to what we have for Testcontainers annotation for JUnit Jupiter. See
| } | ||
| * </code></pre> | ||
| */ | ||
| public class RequireContainerSupportRule implements TestRule { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if DockerCheckRule make sense. I know naming is hard :)
if code makes use of
GenericContaineror any other Test Containers basedRulethen those rules will most likely throw an exception when docker is not available.This leads people to add a
BeforeClassannotation and test for docker, however this does not skip the tests, it skips the class. This has the unfortunate side effect that the report (from thinks like maven surefire and ant) that the test did not run when ingested into tools like Jenkins (as zero tests from the class either passed failed or skipped).it is also not obvious on the command line.
by using a rule the individual tests will be marked as skipped so it becomes obvious that a test existed, but did not run for some reason (and the reason will be in the exception - that docker is not available)
fixes #4586 / #343
see also https://testcontainers.slack.com/archives/C1SUBPZK6/p1670598927610369?thread_ts=1670587111.250949&cid=C1SUBPZK6
243 changed files.... I've passed on adding all those changed files because the projects line ending configuration is incorrect.