Improve consistency between JUnit and Command Line Runners

[cliviu]

inform reporters when scenario outline, examples started see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cukes/ekQBHtnPiQQ.
I hope it will help to improve consistency between JUnit and Command Line Runners

[brasmusson]

The current change does not make the JUnit runner behave like the command line runner. The behavior of the command line runner, with respect to scenario outlines, is specified by this newly added test. When using the corresponding newly added test for the JUnit runner, to evaluate the behavior of the current change, two problems are disclosed:

• the step() calls for the uninstantiated scenario outline steps are missing.
• the calls to both scenarioOutline() and examples() (for both example tables), occur even before the call to uri()

Since there now are test for the formatter call sequences of the JUnit runner, I think this PR needs to be rebased so those test can be updated when changing the behavior of the JUnit runner.

[cliviu]

Yes, I recognized that there are problems with my PR. I'm working on
finding another way to fix it . I will run your test before submitting
any new PR's. Thanks !

On 01.09.2014 13:04, Björn Rasmusson wrote:

The current change does not make the JUnit runner behave like the
command line runner. The behavior of the command line runner, with
respect to scenario outlines, is specified by this newly added test
https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-jvm/blob/master/core/src/test/java/cucumber/runtime/RuntimeTest.java#L448.
When using the corresponding newly added test
https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-jvm/blob/master/junit/src/test/java/cucumber/runtime/junit/FeatureRunnerTest.java#L64
for the JUnit runner, to evaluate the behavior of the current change,
two problems are disclosed:

• the |step()| calls for the uninstantiated scenario outline steps
  are missing.
• the calls to both |scenarioOutline()| and |examples()| (for both
  example tables), occur even before the call to |uri()|

Since there now are test for the formatter call sequences of the JUnit
runner, I think this PR needs to be rebased so those test can be
updated when changing the behavior of the JUnit runner.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#765 (comment).

[cliviu]

I have not modified FeatureRunnerTest but i hope that now the examples() call is in its place. Still not found any place for scenarioOutline() call.

[cliviu]

??

[wakaleo]

This change is required for (and is the last obstacle to!) Thucydides/Cucumber (http://thucydides.info/) integration, which can go live once this change is released - do you have any visibility on when there might be a new release with this change in it?

[aslakhellesoy]

@brasmusson what do you think - good to merge?

[brasmusson]

@aslakhellesoy The current behaviour of the JUnit runner is different than the command line runner, but it is kind of understandable, it only includes actually executed scenarios and step. To only go half the way to the behaviour of the command line runner, makes the inconsistency between the runners just random.

So I suggest to include brasmusson@8e95e90 (which is sitting on top of this PR-branch), so that the JUnit runner become consistent with the command line runner. Now that #704 has been merged, that won't screw up the integration with the MasterThought Cucumber Reporting tools either.

[cliviu]

@brasmusson Yes, I think that your change is very good, it makes sense to handle also the ScenarioOutline , not only the Examples

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.