[SUREFIRE-2219] Add test stdErr/stdOut output to ReportTestCase

[kriegaex]

TestSuiteXmlParser no longer ignores the system-out and system-err tags from the Surefire report XML. It parses them and sets the corresponding properties in ReportTestCase.

@michael-o, this is a bare PR for the back-end. It contains no tests and no changes to SurefireReportRenderer::constructTestCaseSection. I leave these up to you. But now you have the raw data to work from. Sorry, I do not have more time than this. Hope it helps a bit anyway. You can just commit on top of this draft PR.

To do:

• unit tests
• integration tests (make existing ones pass again, in case they are failing, add new ones)
• add option to include console logs into the HTML test report
• depending on the option, render monospaced code sections in ReportTestCase, representing System.out and System.err outputs

---

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004

• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[michael-o]

Thanks, I will look into this shortly. I also need to put other PRs into consider because of memory consumption, etc.

[michael-o]

At current glance looks totally reasonable. Kudos for the first time. Le me check the other open PRs which might intervene here.

[kriegaex]

I also need to put other PRs into consider because of memory consumption, etc.

Are we talking about memory consumption here or in the other PRs? What are you concerned about? The XML parser uses SAX, not a DOM. Of course, the console log contents need to be stored in ReportTestCase properties subsequently, which necessarily uses more memory than the non-existence of such properties. If you are very concerned about this, you could make populating these fields optional. But then,

• either users need to set two properties in two different plugins to activate console log reporting for tests,
• or you need to always report console log entries, if they exist, assuming that if the user activated populating the fields she also wants to include them in the report, which is a reasonable assumption.

[kriegaex]

@michael-o, FYI: I rebased on the latest changes, resolving a merge conflict, and also used mvn spotless:apply to satisfy the formatting build requirements.

[michael-o]

@kriegaex thanks, will try to review asap. Corona has knocked me out.

[kriegaex]

thanks, will try to review asap. Corona has knocked me out.

@michael-o, I wish you a swift recovery. Take good care of yourself.

[acouvreur]

Thanks for this feature @kriegaex !
I would also need this feature, do you need any help on getting the work done ?
I'm able to help

[michael-o]

Thanks for this feature @kriegaex ! I would also need this feature, do you need any help on getting the work done ? I'm able to help

Here is a precursor: #670

[kriegaex]

@acouvreur, actually I am just the user having opened SUREFIRE-2219, not the developer implementing it. Back then, I just had 45 minutes to investigate and do some back-end leg work to hopefully expedite the implementation, handing this off to any committers who feel up for the task and are way more competent regarding content generation via the sink API than I will ever be. I am afraid, I might just create a mess and cleaning it up might take more effort than someone else doing it right.