Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADxc9BkUnnQg=h7qHq-uZ=NLyYWOFFkrj9qEpojLDfJPzEUV1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGUtCHoWhPBM7-HNo2FSGFiCars1thfu2fU677eWNTgvhfXZrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<00d901cee1a9$47686670$d6393350$@comcast.net>
	<CAA+ACqeA5v=_2JBkr7Z2vMwgGoh+HT3pEEHPi=Y4dnaKeg903Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOHP_tENKkJVBr15Vw=uUFaA7MX6Hfj-QZDnKNnMVN7=tBweSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADxc9BkUnnQg=h7qHq-uZ=NLyYWOFFkrj9qEpojLDfJPzEUV1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:09:58 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAL5zq9ZMsgODbJSqA=ybrz7iuFztmE1PUKVcnNUe4se7MzV+jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0
From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Eric,

Is there a reason these cannot be done in Mockito or EasyMock?

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


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.
>
> 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
>> > >
>>