maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Adams <>
Subject Re: maven-failsafe-plugin: what is it actually intended for?
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:16:17 GMT
I don't think timing should be the heuristic here.  The fact that unit
tests take less is a result of the fact that what you're testing, aka the
"unit", tends to be small.  After all, a unit test should test a "unit".

An integration test, then, if I were defining it strictly, would be
anything that's not a unit test.  In practice, this usually means replacing
any mocks and/or stubs in your unit tests with the real implementations,
plus using any other supporting infrastructure, like databases, dependency
injection contexts, etc.



On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Connolly <> wrote:

> On 13 November 2013 15:20, James Green <> wrote:
> > I love the FAQ entry that states that it is intended for running
> > integration tests.
> >
> > The next entry should read: What do you call an integration test?
> >
> Any test that takes more than 1 second to run is *not* a unit test.
> Most tests that take more than 50ms to run are *not* unit tests... but
> there can be some exceptions
> If a unit test needs to call out to other systems, it will typically use a
> mock.
> If your test is actually calling out to other systems (which could be code
> from a dependency, etc - i.e. not just a TCP socket, could be a call within
> JVM) then it is testing the integration of those two parts... therefore it
> is not a unit test.
> There is no hard and fast rule as to where the transition occurs... but we
> know that tests who's execution time is greater than 1 second are not unit
> tests... and hence are integration tests...
> >
> > I've asked around and no-one comes up with a consistent answer. I guess
> it
> > depends on what is executing the integration test. In this case maven is
> > invoking someone after the packaging phase so should I expect to run
> tests
> > against the packaged binary artefact? Is that the purpose here?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > James
> >

-- <>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message