It is not possible, no. Can you motivate the need for this? Is it to make failures more reproducible?
-Mark
> > Thank you,
> > Vladimir
>
> Thanks for reply, Mark!
>
> So SBT runs tests in random order, right?
With parallel execution enabled (the default), the answer is not no. It probably isn't perfectly random, but it isn't deterministic either.
> Of course no ;s) I just would like to know for sure that such a
> setting doesn't exist.
>
> Actually, I do agree that it's useless. Test shouldn't depend on
> execution order.
It could be useful. Because it exists for surefire, I would think someone wants/needs it. I just don't know the exact reason.
-Mark