diogoeag

Yes, that's how we would like to use, but it doesn't work. Are you saygin that this is a problem of the surefire plugin and not from junit?

Hi Kevin, Take a look at these two samples: First test without parameterized: ``` package org; import org.junit.Test; import org.junit.internal.requests.FilterRequest; import org.junit.runner.Description; import org.junit.runner.JUnitCore; import org.junit.runner.manipulation.Filter; public class NoParameterTest {...

@kcooney, I've tested with the current master 4.12-SNAPSHOT and also with 4.11. Both have the same problem.

Just to clarify, fixing this would only need to go to BlockJUnit4ClassRunnerWithParameters and remove the override of the #testName method. That is replacing the default ``` protected String testName(FrameworkMethod method)...

@kcooney Yes to be correct we should have the parameter name in the description, but the description should not affect the test name. I agree with you that the Description...

If anyone needs to have access to this temporary fix: https://github.com/feedzai/junit/commit/be41d2980227d86915d9c8b6f800070a0ef1ff7a

@Tibor17 I'm not sure. Because shoudlRun will use the description also. I don't know enough of the codebase to know if it will work. Only testing it. My sample code...

@kcooney thanks. We will use our internal release meanwhile.

The idea behind this check is that the probability of a failure during the execution of a query (not only iterators) should be very similar to the probability of the...

@jprafael these 16s are during what period of profilling? If its 20seconds its one thing, if its one day, I wouldn't care about it. Note that some of our HA...