Hi @overwave,

Thanks for the proposal, and congratulations on submitting your first issue for JUnit 5. 👍

Would it be possible to consider adding a default boolean array {true, false} option for the @ValueSource annotation in future JUnit releases?

No, that would not be possible. All of the attributes in @ValueSource are optional (i.e., empty arrays by default), so that developers can choose which attribute the wish to use.

As stated in the Javadoc:

Note, however, that only one of the supported types may be specified per @ValueSource declaration.

Providing a default value other than an empty array would therefore break all other use cases.

However, it would be possible to introduce a dedicated argument source that always provides boolean true and false. That would be somewhat analogous to the @NullAndEmptySource support I introduced in JUnit Jupiter 5.7.

I have therefore changed the title of this issue to reflect that, and we will discuss the proposal within the team.

Note, however, that @BooleansSource is merely intended as a possible name for such an annotation.

Regards,

Sam

Such a boolean source can be implemented as a composed annotation as follows.

@Target({ ElementType.ANNOTATION_TYPE, ElementType.METHOD })
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
@Documented
@ValueSource(booleans = {true, false})
public @interface BooleansSource {
}

And that can be used as follows.

@ParameterizedTest
@BooleansSource
void test(boolean flag) {
	assertTrue(flag || !flag);
}

Hi, @sbrannen! Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I understand the solution requires a new annotation, as both you and me proposed above.

The request is to add such annotation (as you've mentioned) to the JUnit library so the code for booleans could be more concise.

The JUnit also has this verbose alternative: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Ajunit-team%2Fjunit5%20%40ValueSource(booleans%20%3D%20%7B%20true%2C%20false%20%7D)&type=code

I will understand if you decide to have more clean API rather than many shortcuts, but this could make our code (and I think someone's too) a little bit tidier.

Best regards,
Rodion

Hi @sbrannen, @marcphilipp and the rest of JUnit Team,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am still very enthusiastic about contributing to this enhancement and am eager to implement the feature if it aligns with your future plans for JUnit. Please let me know if this proposal is under consideration or if there is any additional information or assistance I can provide to help move this forward.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate the work you do to make JUnit a robust and user-friendly testing framework, and I hope to contribute to this effort.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Best regards,
Rodion

@overwave I like your enthusiasm! 🙂

However, as stated in #4518 (comment), we first need to discuss whether we want to add this feature in the team before reviewing a potential solution. We'll post here when that has happened.

Team decision: Since @ValueSource(booleans = {true, false}) already exists and provides more flexibility (in terms of order and number of arguments), we don't think introducing a dedicated annotation for this purpose would be beneficial.