Update pom.xml for JUnit 5.11.0

[harryssuperman]

Update pom.xml for JUnit 5.11.0 and all platform dependencies fixes #57

[sonarcloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[bitcoder]

thanks. should be fine but I'll need to have a look to that release as I still wasnt able to

[harryssuperman]

@bitcoder I hope so. Thanks!

[michael-o]

I believe this extension suffers from the same problem as in here: https://github.com/fabriciorby/maven-surefire-junit5-tree-reporter/pull/54

[bitcoder]

I believe this extension suffers from the same problem as in here: fabriciorby/maven-surefire-junit5-tree-reporter#54

can you elaborate? what would be a proper fix to it, from your perspective?

[michael-o]

I believe this extension suffers from the same problem as in here: fabriciorby/maven-surefire-junit5-tree-reporter#54

can you elaborate? what would be a proper fix to it, from your perspective?

Have you read the link actually? Upshot if an extention is in the classpath of the Surefire plugin all of its Surefire dependencies must be in provided scope otherwise it will end in dep mismatches.

[michael-o]

I believe this extension suffers from the same problem as in here: fabriciorby/maven-surefire-junit5-tree-reporter#54

can you elaborate? what would be a proper fix to it, from your perspective?

Have you read the link actually? Upshot if an extention is in the classpath of the Surefire plugin all of its Surefire dependencies must be in provided scope otherwise it will end in dep mismatches.

Getting back to this. Looking at the POM I believe that all JUnit deps should be in provided scope because otherwise it will mix/override everything provided by Surefire and/or the user. Though, someone needs to verify it with dependency:tree.

[bitcoder]

I believe this extension suffers from the same problem as in here: fabriciorby/maven-surefire-junit5-tree-reporter#54

can you elaborate? what would be a proper fix to it, from your perspective?

Have you read the link actually? Upshot if an extention is in the classpath of the Surefire plugin all of its Surefire dependencies must be in provided scope otherwise it will end in dep mismatches.

Getting back to this. Looking at the POM I believe that all JUnit deps should be in provided scope because otherwise it will mix/override everything provided by Surefire and/or the user. Though, someone needs to verify it with dependency:tree.

Thanks for the feedback We can probably open a new ticket for it; I need some help on this topic though