Switch to enable/disable test execution for Testcontainers tests

[ejcsid]

Pull Request

Changes

• Added check of environment variable skipTestcontainersTests for possibility to disable Testcontainers tests (execute mvn with setting -DskipTestcontainersTests=true to disable Testcontainers tests, otherwise all tests are executed)

Reference

Issue: #1313

Checklist

Note: If some checklist items are not relevant for your PR, just remove them.

General

• I have read the Contribution Guidelines (TBD)
• Met all acceptance criteria of the issue
• Added meaningful PR title and list of changes in the description
• Opened documentation issue in refarch repository (if applicable)

Code

• Wrote code and comments in English

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Added conditional test execution configuration, enabling testcontainer-based tests to be selectively skipped via system property settings.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added the @DisabledIfSystemProperty annotation to three test classes to conditionally skip test execution when the system property skipTestcontainerTests is set to "true". This enables bypassing testcontainer-dependent tests without modifying test logic.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test class conditional skip annotations refarch-backend/src/test/java/de/muenchen/refarch/configuration/filter/CacheControlFilterTest.java, refarch-backend/src/test/java/de/muenchen/refarch/configuration/filter/UnicodeFilterConfigurationTest.java, refarch-backend/src/test/java/de/muenchen/refarch/theentity/TheEntityIntegrationTest.java	Added DisabledIfSystemProperty import and @DisabledIfSystemProperty(named = "skipTestcontainerTests", matches = "true") annotation to each test class for conditional test execution control

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Simple, repetitive annotation additions across three files following an identical pattern
• No logic changes or behavioral modifications to test implementations
• Straightforward metadata configuration only

Poem

🐰 Three test classes gather 'round,
With annotations, freedom's found—
"Skip!" they cry when flags align,
Testcontainers? We shall decline!
Conditional wisdom, neatly signed ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the main change: adding a mechanism to enable/disable test execution for Testcontainers tests through a system property.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Description check	✅ Passed	The pull request description follows the required template structure with clear Changes section, Issue reference, and completed General and Code checklist items.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch 1313-feature-switch-for-testcontainers-test-execution

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[eidottermihi]

@ejcsid I suggest annotating the Testcontainers tests with @EnabledIfDockerAvailable

That way the tests are only executed if there is a Docker (or compatible daemon, eg. Podman) available on the machine executing the test.

[simonhir]

@eidottermihi is there a reason you prefer that? I would rather prefer the current change, as then the deactivation of the tests is an aktive decision and can not happen by accident. E.g. I often run the tests locally and just realize that docker isn't running when the tests fail.

[devtobi]

Alternatively instead of introducing a custom system property the @Tag-mechanism of JUnit can be used as well to disable certain tests.

[eidottermihi]

@simonhir ofc, if you want an active deciscion by the developer, than EnabledIf... is not the right fit.