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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[PAXEXAM-674] Configurations and probe builders do not need to be static #72

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[PAXEXAM-674] Configurations and probe builders do not need to be static #72

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

vorburger
Copy link
Member

  • Repair the parameterized runner for non-PerMethod strategies.
  • Add an integration test for parameterized PAX configurations.
  • Format the code with the right formatter.

@vincent-zurczak @vorburger
[PAXEXAM-674] Configurations and probe builders do not need to be static
cc9ab7a 
- Repair the parameterized runner for non-PerMethod strategies.
- Add an integration test for parameterized PAX configurations.
- Format the code with the right formatter.
grgrzybek
grgrzybek reviewed May 22, 2017
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@grgrzybek grgrzybek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Too long to review now ;) Give me some time...

@vorburger
Copy link
Member Author

Oh, there already was #45 .. just noticing that now. I'm confused, because comments in #45 said this was actually breaking as much as fixing... but the CircleCI build just passed, so... we're good, we can merge this?

@ANierbeck
Copy link
Member

unfortunately I fear the circle ci might not be "feature" complete regarding testing,
with jenkins we do have some matrix tests:
http://ci.ops4j.org/jenkins/job/org.ops4j.pax.exam-4.x-itest/

@vorburger
Copy link
Member Author

Abandon, for now.

@vorburger vorburger closed this May 23, 2017
@ops4j-issues ops4j-issues mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2021
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@grgrzybek grgrzybek grgrzybek left review comments

@hwellmann hwellmann Awaiting requested review from hwellmann

@cschneider cschneider Awaiting requested review from cschneider

@jamie-kemp jamie-kemp Awaiting requested review from jamie-kemp

@arunan-interlink arunan-interlink Awaiting requested review from arunan-interlink

@ANierbeck ANierbeck Awaiting requested review from ANierbeck

@ffang ffang Awaiting requested review from ffang

@gnodet gnodet Awaiting requested review from gnodet

@oliverlietz oliverlietz Awaiting requested review from oliverlietz

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@vorburger @ANierbeck @grgrzybek @vincent-zurczak