Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mdrob@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMz+DuuhSJZSNtGjJfGZL=DX4sCQPgO7O1cUH+gYkou2sWZJoQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAFAMeYL=QwsSgFkQOHfeLjSD2tdWBVNARcTwCxktOpJ3vjY2+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz+DuuhSJZSNtGjJfGZL=DX4sCQPgO7O1cUH+gYkou2sWZJoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:21:01 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAFAMeYK56CFn5Ekj7SsR57=s0z9t5wA1Rsk1R2W4i33GgFSaKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Using ZooCache in unit tests
To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ac785306dc04fb988a3f

--089e0158ac785306dc04fb988a3f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I tried passing a MockInstance and a mock(Instance.class) higher in the
call chain, but it still tried to pull information out of them to make the
call.

Explicitly mocking that call might work, but I thought there was some issue
with PowerMock and Java 7 that existed when mocking static methods? Oh,
also that call is private, so I'd have to mock everything that uses it.
I'll look into that soon.


On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:16 PM, William Slacum <
wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:

> What about mocking that call?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > When writing unit tests, I indirectly call code that invokes
> > {{Tables.getZooCache(Instance)}} which sets up a connection to a
> zookeeper.
> > However, there is not a server running, so this end up looping forever
> > until my test times out.
> >
> > It looks like my options are...
> > 1) Make it an IT that uses MAC, so that there is a ZK to connect to
> > (probably overkill)
> > 2) Stand up my own ZK (error prone? duplicative?)
> > 3) Stand up a Curator Testing Server (introduces new dependencies).
> > 4) Not write tests.
> >
> > I'm leaning toward number 3, but was wondering if anybody had thoughts on
> > this, since I feel like that will have a lasting impact on the code.
> >
>

--089e0158ac785306dc04fb988a3f--