I'm not sure if this is a bug or not, but JUnit does not (At least on my local copy) run the tests in a random manner.
I'm not really the best to talk about it, but while trying to track down an issue with a memory leak in LockableListModel (More visible elements than there are elements) I noticed that the test order was always the same. The issue itself is probably related to rollover; Seeing as I can't seem to reproduce it after rollover.
I'm not sure why the test order is like this, given that default behavior is random and I can't seem to find something in the project specifying a specific test order.
But when running the tests in a random order, I'm seeing multiple tests fail.
Some of them, it's probably simple as data wasn't loaded? Others, I believe they're depending on other tests putting them in a good state to run.
Regardless, I don't think it's good practice. If mafia's tests rely on classes being called in a specific order that's not obvious, and not annotated to run before other classes; That's probably not good code practice.
This also exposes test leakage where stuff wasn't cleaned up but isn't obvious due to test order.
I'm not really the best to talk about it, but while trying to track down an issue with a memory leak in LockableListModel (More visible elements than there are elements) I noticed that the test order was always the same. The issue itself is probably related to rollover; Seeing as I can't seem to reproduce it after rollover.
I'm not sure why the test order is like this, given that default behavior is random and I can't seem to find something in the project specifying a specific test order.
But when running the tests in a random order, I'm seeing multiple tests fail.
Some of them, it's probably simple as data wasn't loaded? Others, I believe they're depending on other tests putting them in a good state to run.
Regardless, I don't think it's good practice. If mafia's tests rely on classes being called in a specific order that's not obvious, and not annotated to run before other classes; That's probably not good code practice.
This also exposes test leakage where stuff wasn't cleaned up but isn't obvious due to test order.