I don't think we should/need to. I fail to see any tangible benefits of TestNG over JUnit 4.0, and there's just too many JUnit-derived frameworks that'll be that much more complex to use as TestNG test. The only major benefit would be to use tapestry-test base classes, but we already have our own.
Kalle Korhonen
added a comment - I don't think we should/need to. I fail to see any tangible benefits of TestNG over JUnit 4.0, and there's just too many JUnit-derived frameworks that'll be that much more complex to use as TestNG test. The only major benefit would be to use tapestry-test base classes, but we already have our own.
I think we we might want to still delay collapsing it to the trunk because there's some hope to get the OGNL #this problem resolved first (http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/OGNL-97). Jesse claims the OGNL unit test is passing now with his latest fixes. I haven't been able to verify it, but it's possible I just don't have the right version (yet). If it works, we'd just exclude OGNL 2.7 and explicitly include 2.7.1-SNAPSHOT in our trunk.
Kalle Korhonen
added a comment - I think we we might want to still delay collapsing it to the trunk because there's some hope to get the OGNL #this problem resolved first (http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/OGNL-97). Jesse claims the OGNL unit test is passing now with his latest fixes. I haven't been able to verify it, but it's possible I just don't have the right version (yet). If it works, we'd just exclude OGNL 2.7 and explicitly include 2.7.1-SNAPSHOT in our trunk.
Improvement
Closed
Major
Following Tapestry's foot steps: Should we move from jUnit to TestNG?