Suite.xml files attempt to make web request when suite references standard TestNG DTD using HTTP

TestNG Version

7.3.0

Expected behavior

Suite file referencing http://testng.org/testng-1.0.dtd should NOT attempt to load the DTD URL, and therefore should not require -Dtestng.dtd.http=true.

Actual behavior

The http version of the DTD URL is unrecognized by Parser.isUnRecognizedPublicId, and therefore TestNG complains that it needs the testng.dtd.http property to download the DTD from the URL.

Is the issue reproductible on runner?

• Shell
• Maven
• Gradle
• Ant
• Eclipse
• IntelliJ
• NetBeans

Test case sample

The following suite file is generated by IntelliJ 2020.2.3, when I right-click to run a class:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE suite SYSTEM "http://testng.org/testng-1.0.dtd">
<suite name="Default Suite">
  <test name="myproject">
    <classes>
      <class name="example.TestClass"/>
    </classes>
  </test> <!-- myproject -->
</suite> <!-- Default Suite -->

[krmahadevan]

@robbytx - Thanks for confirming that the fix works fine.

At the risk of being rude, I can’t help but observe that this regression could have been avoided if this type of behavior were covered by a unit test, and I’ll note that your fix does not contain a unit test, so this behavior could be regressed in the future.

Sure. Feedback taken. On the flip-side of not sounding blunt, adding a unit test for this would be a bit more involved effort, since

• I would have to figure out a mechanism that detects if the classloading was resorted to.
• I would also need to figure out a mechanism that would intercept a call to the internet and then fake it.

I didn’t have the time. Also I self concluded that this is not a functionality that is going to be changing a lot over time and so I did a quick cost effort weighing in and intentionally skipped adding a test.

But all said and done, if you have any ideas on how to go about adding a test for this, please feel free to contribute. If it’s via a PR, it’s even more merrier. We will be more than happy to get it vetted out and merged.

[robbytx]

Yes, it is working now – thank you for fixing it.

At the risk of being rude, I can’t help but observe that this regression could have been avoided if this type of behavior were covered by a unit test, and I’ll note that your fix does not contain a unit test, so this behavior could be regressed in the future.