accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: Integration Tests
Date Fri, 03 May 2013 16:30:22 GMT
I can move it.  Eclipse should make it fairly simple


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Corey Nolet <cnolet@texeltek.com> wrote:

> I was wondering about that on a recent patch... I'd have done it in the
> patch but i can't delete files...
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems there was a consensus that MAC should be moved to server.  Is
> > anyone going to do this for 1.5?
> >
> > One more advantage of this move would be putting MAC in its one package.
> >  Currently it shares a package with a lot of unrelated test code.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think I like the idea of moving it to server and working towards MAC
> > and
> > > the "regular" processes being equal citizens. Whether or not we make a
> > > convenient option to auto-start a proxy is more of a discussion about
> how
> > > easy we want to make startup for a new person.
> > >
> > > As much as I think we need to get 1.5 out the door, I think this may be
> > > best to nip right away rather than create confusion about "where did
> MAC
> > > go!" immediately after 1.5.0 is released.
> > >
> > > The server module seems like the most painless and correct home for
> > > MiniAccumuloCluster.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/28/13 1:45 AM, Christopher wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree that accumulo-test is the best place, but I think we should
> > >> make it a point that no other modules should depend on accumulo-test
> > >> for precisely this reason... to provide a place for end-to-end tests
> > >> of other modules (the assembly module notwithstanding).
> > >>
> > >> This is actually a good reason to move MiniAccumuloCluster from test,
> > >> because the proxy currently has a dependency on it just for
> > >> MiniAccumuloCluster. That way, end-to-end integration testing that
> > >> includes even testing of the proxy would make sense to exist in
> > >> accumulo-test, and we'd avoid a circular dependency. It could be moved
> > >> to server instead, as it seems to me that it is essentially an
> > >> alternate server implementation (from the proxy's perspective,
> > >> anyway). Though, I'm not sure I like the idea that the proxy is
> > >> dependent on anything other than client code (accumulo-core).
> > >>
> > >> Alternatively, the proxy's dependency could be reversed, so that
> > >> instead of the proxy having an option to start up a
> > >> MiniAccumuloCluster, the MiniAccumuloCluster could have an option to
> > >> start up the proxy. This reversal actually makes more sense to me
> > >> anyway. I never understood why the proxy should have the option to
> > >> start up Accumulo, Mini or otherwise, as the natural operation, as it
> > >> seems to me to be a bit backwards: an interface launching the service,
> > >> rather than a service exposing an interface. I suppose it's not
> > >> unprecedented, but it seems backwards to me.
> > >>
> > >> A third option is to move MiniAccumuloCluster to another module
> > >> entirely, but I'm not so sure that's necessary or desirable.
> > >>
> > >> Any of these options removes the circular dependency, if we're going
> > >> to make the accumulo-test the place to put end-to-end integration
> > >> tests.
> > >>
> > >> My preference is a combination of the first two options: to put
> > >> MiniAccumuloCluster in the server module and reverse the dependency,
> > >> so that proxy only depends on core, and none depend on test.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Corey Nolet <cnolet@texeltek.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  So the accumulo-test would be the best place to start putting end
to
> > end
> > >>>> integration tests?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  For test against code in modules that can not depend on
> > accumulo-test I
> > >>> think this is a good place.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -------- Original message --------
> > >>>> From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > >>>> Date: 04/26/2013  7:27 AM  (GMT-05:00)
> > >>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Integration Tests
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The maven-failsafe-plugin is already configured to execute
> integration
> > >>>> tests in the 1.5 branch and trunk. Simply name your JUnit classes
to
> > >>>> execute with the pattern of "*IT" (vs. "*Test" for unit tests),
and
> > >>>> they'll execute during the integration test phase of the build
> > >>>> lifecycle. That way, they won't slow down a "mvn package" build,
but
> > >>>> they'll still get executed for a full build "mvn verify".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Corey Nolet <cnolet@texeltek.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Would it make sense to start putting more integration tests
for
> > tablet
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> servers, master, connector, etc… inside of the accumulo-test
module
> > (or
> > >>>> some other module)? Seems like it'd be useful to have tests at
the
> > >>>> various
> > >>>> layers. Until we have a plugin to start up the mini acc cluster
once
> > and
> > >>>> only once, I don't want to drastically slow down the build. I would,
> > >>>> however, like to have some integration tests for a current ticket
> I'm
> > >>>> working on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Corey Nolet
> Senior Software Engineer
> TexelTek, inc.
> [Office] 301.880.7123
> [Cell] 410-903-2110
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message