@mtthsAtrv sorry for the slow progress. I have been swamped and did not yet find the time to look deeper into the matter

Hi @l-1squared ,

thanks for the information :-)

Might I ask you if you already have a raw guess when a solution might be available for this issue?

Thanks a lot

I will devote as much time to this as possible. The first thing I want to do is write some JGiven tests so that we have an end-to-end view on failing assumptions. I now want to eradicate this issue once and for all.
Then I'll start looking for the actual error.
I've linked the branch I'm working on.

Thanks a lot for your feedback @l-1squared :-)

We are looking forward to the solution ...

At least I now managed to reproduce the issue :)

As a quick hack I have locally tried this change in class com.tngtech.jgiven.junit5.JGivenExtension, at first sight it seemed to work.

But I can not really assess if this is the correct and clean solution to the problem, maybe there are some side effects I do not see.

Hi,
unfortunately this is taking forever. The reason so far was that I made some harmless looking changes in my testsetup, which turned out to produce a host of weird behavior and errors.

I think I by now drilled down to the actual issue, and thankfully you have already provided me with a pointer.
One interesting thing that is not covered by this is, however, that we, for Junit5 seem to record scenarios at a different place in the test lifecycle than we do for junit4 and testng.

Because in my current setup. If I fail for the first step, I will completely omit that the scenario existed (which also doesn't sound quite right) whereas for JUnit5 I don't.

Ah, so I think I've figured it out.

But, it appears as if previously, failed assumpitons would have just omitted the scenarios from the report. This does not sit quite right with me so I'm trying to make them behave like failing scenarios, but they will show up with a grey marker.

I think that would be fine for us, but could you please - in addition to using another colour - also replace the word "failed" by "skipped" or another description that is consistent with JUnit (surefire) test reports?

Currently ist looks like

and the word "failed" seems not be quite right on failed assumptions.

The plan right now is to introduce a new Step and Scenario status called "ABORTED" that will show up in grey like pending scenarios but will in its behavior be more akin to "failed" scenarios.

Thanks a lot for your feedback - that sounds good to us.

Could you please let us know as soon as a (preview) version is available?

Hi l-1squared,

I wanted to ask if maybe you could already give us a prediction when the JGiven version fixing this issue might be available?

Would be great, because we could need this information for our Sprint plannings ...

Kind regards

HI @mtthsAtrv as much as I would like to give you a date for this. I cannot. The time I can devote to this project depends on a multitude of factors that are in combination hard to obtain estimates from.
Just this month it turned out that I could not devote any time (Thus my late response). I can promise you that I keep this the top priority for JGiven.
I'm sorry that I cannot deliver a more positive answer for you.

Hi @l-1squared ,

thanks a lot for this information.

So we'll sadly have to come to terms with that effect for the next time.

We'll keep watching this issue and are looking forward to a solution ...

Kind regards