-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 583
Introduce PowerMockExtension for JUnit Jupiter support #1146
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
base: release/2.x
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Introduce PowerMockExtension for JUnit Jupiter support #1146
Conversation
This commit adds a new module that includes a JUnit Jupiter extension implementation that relies on the existing Java agent to transform classes and implements the same logic as the corresponding PowerMockRule. More test coverage should be added before releasing this in earnest but it should work just like the JUnit 4 rule.
|
I hope the PowerMock community will award you a medal for that! |
|
Hello powermock team, can you please have a look at this please? |
|
@johanhaleby / @thekingn0thing / PowerMock contributors, Kindly have a look into this PR. |
|
Great work, thanks @marcphilipp! Is there any chance to get a new version of PowerMock which integrates this change soon, @johanhaleby / @thekingn0thing ? |
|
I was trying to build locally and ran into this problem: spring-propdeps-plugin-no-longer-working |
Due to some Spring repository policy changes the propdeps Gradle plugin seems not to be available any longer as release version. Cf. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76370197/spring-propdeps-plugin-no-longer-working Addendum to powermock#1146
|
Has there been any progress on this PR |
|
It has been almost 2 years. A lot of people wants this change. What does it take to get this PR merged into the base branch? |
This commit adds a new module that includes a JUnit Jupiter extension
implementation that relies on the existing Java agent to transform
classes and implements the same logic as the corresponding
PowerMockRule. More test coverage should be added before releasing this
in earnest but it should work just like the JUnit 4 rule.
Resolves #830.