Vintage filtering is not compatible with JUnitParamsRunner

[blindpirate]

Overview

Seems like Vintage filtering is not compatible with the JUnitParamsRunner.

Step to reproduce:

• Add dependency compile 'pl.pragmatists:JUnitParams:1.1.1'

import junitparams.*;
import org.junit.platform.engine.*;
import org.junit.platform.engine.discovery.*;
import org.junit.platform.launcher.*;
import org.junit.platform.launcher.core.*;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
import org.junit.Test;

public class VintageJUnitParams {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Launcher launcher = LauncherFactory.create();

        LauncherDiscoveryRequestBuilder requestBuilder = LauncherDiscoveryRequestBuilder.request()
                .selectors(DiscoverySelectors.selectClass(PersonTest.class))
                .filters((PostDiscoveryFilter) descriptor -> {
                    System.out.println("Exclude: " + descriptor.getUniqueId());
                    return FilterResult.excluded("excluded");
                });
        launcher.execute(requestBuilder.build());
    }

    @RunWith(JUnitParamsRunner.class)
    public static class PersonTest {
        @Test
        @Parameters({"17, false", "22, true"})
        public void personIsAdult(int age, boolean valid) throws Exception {
            System.out.println("This shouldn't be run!");
        }
    }
}

The tests are still executed even I exclude them in the filter. I do observe the warning WARNING: Runner junitparams.JUnitParamsRunner (used on class VintageJUnitParams$PersonTest) was not able to satisfy all filter requests. so I'm not sure if this is expected behavior.

Vintage version: 5.1.0

[marcphilipp]

@blindpirate Thanks for creating the issue! I've started looking into it. However, I might need a bit more time to wrap my head around it.

[blindpirate]

Thanks @marcphilipp , no hurry at all :-)

[marcphilipp]

After some research, I've discovered that this is actually caused by an inconsistency in the JUnitParams runner. I've opened Pragmatists/JUnitParams#153.

[blindpirate]

Cool, if you decide there's nothing to do on JUnit's side, please close this.

[marcphilipp]

There shouldn't be, but I'd like to test it again if the JUnitParams maintainers decide to change the current behavior.