This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 28, 2021. It is now read-only.
Bump junit-bom to 5.7.0 #323
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
See issue here: junit-team/junit4#1678
|
This is weird: But https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.junit.vintage/junit-vintage-engine/5.7.0 |
|
It is the jackson-bom. |
|
@patriknordlen PTAL. Not sure why coverage check complains though. |
|
@honnix This is still relevant right? (The coverage checks are unfortunately a bit flaky) |
|
@klaraward I think this is still valid since the suggestion in junit-team/junit4#1678 is to upgrade. I will need to take another look what this is really about, because it's been a while. :D |
|
The coverage under java8 seems very broken and this worries me. I will take a deeper look at it. |
|
spotify/styx#884 was a related change. |
|
Of course! Please go ahead. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See issue here: junit-team/junit4#1678