Skip to content
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

Split junit-quickcheck-core into -api, -junit4, and -junit5 artifacts #254

Open
vlsi opened this issue Jan 19, 2020 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #255
Open

Split junit-quickcheck-core into -api, -junit4, and -junit5 artifacts #254

vlsi opened this issue Jan 19, 2020 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #255

Comments

@vlsi
Copy link
Contributor

vlsi commented Jan 19, 2020

As of now, junit-quickcheck-core adds junit:4.12 transitive dependency, which is sad since it exposes classes like org.junit.Assert to the junit-quickcheck consumer code.

What do you think if there were an API artifact and relevant engine artifacts?

In other words, API would contain the classes that are needed to create junit-quickcheck tests (e.g. annotations, SourceOfRandomness). And the engine could be junit4 or junit5 based (e.g. different artifacts).

vlsi added a commit to vlsi/junit-quickcheck that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2020
@vlsi vlsi linked a pull request Jan 19, 2020 that will close this issue
vlsi added a commit to vlsi/junit-quickcheck that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2020
vlsi added a commit to vlsi/junit-quickcheck that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2020
vlsi added a commit to vlsi/junit-quickcheck that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2020
vlsi added a commit to vlsi/junit-quickcheck that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2020
vlsi added a commit to vlsi/junit-quickcheck that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2020
vlsi added a commit to vlsi/junit-quickcheck that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants
@vlsi and others