Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3652-c2929551892@github.com>
From: "davecramer (@davecramer)" <noreply+davecramer@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 09:02:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #3652: chore: update JUnit to 5.13, use @ParameterizedClass
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3652@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3652@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: davecramer
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 2929551892
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Issue: 3652
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/3652#issuecomment-2929551892
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

> The procedure was like
> 
> * remove `import org.junit.Test;`
> * autofix "import `@Test`" with junit5
> * autofix "JUnit4 assertions used in JUnit5 test"
> * make all Assertion imports static
> * wrap long assertion lines if needed <-- this was manual
> * replace `@RunWith(Parameterized.class)` with `@ParameterizedClass`, add `@MethodSource("data")`
> 
> My guess is that with an LLM I would not have any confidence in the result: JUnit4 and JUnit5 have different order of arguments for `assertEquals`, and sometimes the code was using the wrong order.
I've had pretty positive results with an LLM