Marcono1234

Do you want to address #399 here as well? (in case it is really only a small change as suggested in https://github.com/DarkflameUniverse/DarkflameServer/issues/399#issuecomment-1030998040)

I only had a brief look at how `@Disabled` is implemented by JUnit, but to me it appears ideally the `@NotWorking` code would hook into `org.junit.jupiter.engine.execution.ConditionEvaluator.evaluate`. However, I am currently...

> I have something like `@ExpectFailing` in mind The reason why I wanted to avoid such name containing "expect" is that it makes it sound like the developer intentionally wants...

> To keep this issue and the related PR from stalling, I'm just gonna make the call and say the extension should be named `@ExpectedToFail`. > > @Marcono1234 Are you...

I just came across this project implementing a similar idea: https://github.com/MartinWitt/GithubIssue Probably not that relevant for this implementation, but maybe interesting nonetheless that someone else had a similar idea, and...

> What is the difference between a failing test running but not breaking and a test not running at all? Let's imagine there is a bug in your application: 1....

Thanks a lot to all of you for being so welcoming and providing such helpful review comments (here and on my other pull requests)! I have tried to address most...

Thanks for the feedback! I tried to address most of it and commented in the other cases, hopefully that is what you had in mind.

> I don't think you need to worry about `@BeforeEach` or `@AfterEach`, since exceptions occurring there are not really part of the tested behaviour. I was thinking of the case...

As mentioned in my comment above `InvocationInterceptor` might not work for the `@AfterEach` case. In case that is not possible, do you want me to use `InvocationInterceptor` nonetheless even though...