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
The big advantage of the Table assertions is that they are a lot simpler to use than comparative options like JUnit's ParameterizedTest.
However one downside in comparison is that the Table Test shows up as a single node in the test report, whereas ParameterizedTest will add an entry for each parameter set. If you have a big table, that makes it rather complicated to see what is failing and what is not. Also, we cannot rerun individual failing rows.
A solution would be to take advantage of JUnit's dynamic tests. Instead of just calling the table forAll function, we could use a setup like this:
@TestFactory
fun myTableTest() = tableOf("a", "b", "result")
.row(0, 0, 1)
.row(1, 2, 4)
.asDynamicTest { a, b, result ->
assertThat(a + b).isEqualTo(result)
}
The asDynamicTest function would be an extension function residing in a JVM + JUnit 5 exclusive file.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The big advantage of the Table assertions is that they are a lot simpler to use than comparative options like JUnit's ParameterizedTest.
However one downside in comparison is that the Table Test shows up as a single node in the test report, whereas ParameterizedTest will add an entry for each parameter set. If you have a big table, that makes it rather complicated to see what is failing and what is not. Also, we cannot rerun individual failing rows.
A solution would be to take advantage of JUnit's dynamic tests. Instead of just calling the table forAll function, we could use a setup like this:
The asDynamicTest function would be an extension function residing in a JVM + JUnit 5 exclusive file.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: