accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0
Date Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:09:45 GMT
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Eric Newton <eric.newton@gmail.com> wrote:

> -1
>
> I'm a little more invested in Mock since I wrote the first instance of it.
>  I know it does not simulate the accumulo API perfectly.  And I know it
> adds some maintenance overhead for anyone adding new features to the API.
>
> However, adding additional testing requirements for a new API is something
> I like.
>
> Take a counter example: the "file://" hdfs implementation.  It allows you
> to use the local file system through the same API you would use for the
> distributed file system.
>
> Except, it doesn't. It does not behave the same as hdfs.  None of our
> recovery tests can use the local fs implementation because it just doesn't
> implement the proper flush semantics.
>

I think Hadoop should fix local fs to have correct behavior.  Just like we
should fix Mock to have correct behavior if we are going to continue to
maintain it.


>
> Yet dozens of our own tests rely on the speedy availability of the local fs
> implementation.
>
> Having a fast way to test iterators that uses a test harness is not the
> same thing as testing the iterators using the same API they would use
> without Mock.  I have long called for an iterator test harness to stress
> the issues of iterator lifetimes.
>
> Finally, I would humbly suggest that our software has stabilized to the
> point where we tests at all levels:
>
> * iterator stress tester
> * Mock API
> * Integration test using MAC
> * System tests that can be run at full scale
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for keeping a fast and easy (and well documented) mechanism for
> > debugging iterators. Perhaps the SortedMapiterator is the solution..but
> the
> > key words here are 'well documented'
> >
> > -1 for continuing support a half implemented mock framework that we have
> to
> > maintain. It makes code maintenance very hard when you couldnt, for
> > instance in the 1.3 series, even create a MockBatchDeleter. As Chris
> > stated, I agree that using the mock in the past had users walking the
> line
> > too closely between unit and integration tests. With the mock, I could
> > write a bunch of fully valid tests against an iterator without the
> ability
> > to verify that compactions didn't negatively affect my results. Except
> for
> > being fast, the MAC mostly eliminates the need to use the mock for that
> > kind of test at all while it makes the tests more valid to an actual
> > runtime environment.
> >
> > +1 for mocking framework to be used in relevant unit tests. There are
> times
> > when a quick and dirty mock is immensely useful and MAC is slow and way
> > overkill for those tasks. Perhaps it would be worth a ticket to
> investigate
> > replacing the current usages of mockAccumulo (I haven't looked in awhile)
> > with said mocking framework.
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2013 3:29 PM, "Michael Berman" <mberman@sqrrl.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (not really a voter)
> > >
> > > I think iterator unit tests should use SortedMapIterator, not anything
> > like
> > > a full accumulo stack, and I think MAC is far more suitable for
> > integration
> > > tests because it actually runs the same code...it's impossible for an
> > > outsider to tell in which behaviors mock reflects actual accumulo and
> in
> > > which it does something totally different.
> > >
> > > I do think MAC needs some help, but I think the process of excising
> mock
> > > from our own tests will flesh out what we need there better than
> anything
> > > else we could do.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *From:* Keith Turner [mailto:keith@deenlo.com]
> > > > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:42 PM
> > > > *To:* dev@accumulo.apache.org; user@accumulo.apache.org
> > > > *Subject:* [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0?  This was considered [1]
> > for
> > > > 1.5.0.  I started thinking about this because I never added
> conditional
> > > > writer to mock.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878
> > > >
> >
>

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