-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Dependent methods not running in correct order when using parallel instances #2372
Comments
@mihalyr - Can you please edit this issue and include the TestNG version information as well (if you aren't using |
Yep, this is on |
@mihalyr - This is fixed as part of #2321. This problem should go away when you use @juherr - Considering the fact that the current TestNG design will not let a user run dependent methods in the same thread as the independent thread (without using |
@krmahadevan I suggest that we keep the issue open and update the documentation in order to warn about the current limitation. |
@krmahadevan Thanks for the update, which version will include the changes you mentioned, 7.4.0? |
Yes |
@krmahadevan , when can we expect 7.4.0 to be released? I am struggling with this as well. |
@ristoporila - Its going to take some time since before @cbeust @juherr so far we have only around 8 bug fixes that have landed in master. Do we go ahead with a release ? |
This is still a bug in v7.8.0. |
@BrandonDudek - Do you have a sample that can be used to reproduce the problem ? |
TestNG version 7.3.0
Dependent methods might not always execute in the correct order with
parallel=instances
, below is a reproducer, which quite often fails (not 100% reliable as sometimes does succeed too). Not sure why, but I could not reproduce it without the added delay. Also the number of test methods in the class had a relation to failures too.Is this a known issue? It seems I cannot use
parallel=instances
with dependent methods even if my code is thread safe if there are dependencies between test methods.Originally posted by @mihalyr in #751 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: