Summary
Per review feedback on #823, investigate whether EngineTestKit from junit-platform-testkit (already a dependency) could replace the manual LauncherFactory + SummaryGeneratingListener approach in JUnitTestBaseClass.run().
Reference: https://docs.junit.org/6.0.3/advanced-topics/testkit.html
Details
Currently all container tests extend JUnitTestBaseClass which uses LauncherFactory to discover and execute tests. EngineTestKit provides a more fluent, purpose-built API for testing JUnit 5 extensions.
The main consideration is that the mock TestRunnerAdaptor wiring, Cycle tracking, and lifecycle assertions would still be needed — EngineTestKit would only simplify the runner invocation. A refactoring of JUnitTestBaseClass.run() to use EngineTestKit internally would benefit all tests rather than adopting it piecemeal.
Summary
Per review feedback on #823, investigate whether
EngineTestKitfromjunit-platform-testkit(already a dependency) could replace the manualLauncherFactory+SummaryGeneratingListenerapproach inJUnitTestBaseClass.run().Reference: https://docs.junit.org/6.0.3/advanced-topics/testkit.html
Details
Currently all container tests extend
JUnitTestBaseClasswhich usesLauncherFactoryto discover and execute tests.EngineTestKitprovides a more fluent, purpose-built API for testing JUnit 5 extensions.The main consideration is that the mock
TestRunnerAdaptorwiring,Cycletracking, and lifecycle assertions would still be needed —EngineTestKitwould only simplify the runner invocation. A refactoring ofJUnitTestBaseClass.run()to useEngineTestKitinternally would benefit all tests rather than adopting it piecemeal.