You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
sbrannen
changed the title
Could you please reconsider the addition of RangeTest?
Could you please reconsider the addition of @RangeSource?
Sep 7, 2024
Have you tried JUnit Pioneer's support for Range Sources?
Sorry, I had missed this.
This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.
How about using a @FieldSource?
Sorry, I missed this as well.
If it can run concurrently, this would be useful for my use case.
Thoughts?
I've made the point a bit vague, but I think the problem remains that the MethodSource is not executed concurrently.
However, is this a duplication of #3373?
If so, I will close it.
Have you tried JUnit Pioneer's support for Range Sources?
Sorry, I had missed this. This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.
👍
How about using a @FieldSource?
Sorry, I missed this as well.
No worries. It's "new" since JUnit Jupiter 5.11 which was just recently released.
I've made the point a bit vague, but I think the problem remains that the MethodSource is not executed concurrently.
I don't think there's anything particular about @MethodSource with regards to parallel execution: every ArgumentsProvider for a parameterized test ends up producing a Stream of Arguments.
However, is this a duplication of #3373? If so, I will close it.
Indeed, I am closing this as a duplicate of the following.
I have a heavy test for a very large range and am trying to parallelize this.
In doing so, I have noticed that if I use a
@MethodSource
, it will not be parallelized.If this is a limitation due to circumstances specific to
@MethodSource
, could we introduce a@RangeSource
?In my layman's opinion, I think it would be easier to implement since the internal processing can be done in the same way as a
@ValueSource
.Also, I feel that
@MethodSource
is a bit difficult to use in several ways, so I would like a@RangeSource
in that sense.I realize that this is a feature that has already been denied once with #851, but could you please consider it again?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: