Mailing-List: contact dev-help@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org
From: "Till Westmann" <tillw@apache.org>
To: dev@asterixdb.incubator.apache.org
Subject: IFramewriter state transitions
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 17:43:45 -0800
Message-ID: <EC47AF55-44A4-4172-91ED-E4E8D43EC3BC@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

When improving test coverage we noticed, that there are some =

inconsistencies wrt. state management and transitions in different =

implementations of IFramewriter. These inconsistencies cause a number of =

test failures - especially when testing error conditions. Ian has =

written up a document [1] on the current contract (which is =

unfortunately not consistently implemented) and on an alternate contract =

that we have discussed.
We currently believe that the alternate contract would be preferable as =

there is more similarity in the approach to handling errors during =

open() or nextFrame().
Our proposal is to
1) Adopt the alternate contract and document it in
    a) the IFramewriter javadoc and
    b) a design document.
2) Implement new operators according to the alternate contract.
3) Add mock-based unit tests (e.g. using Mockito [2]) for new operators =

that verify that the contract is maintained.
4) Add mock-based using test for existing operators as bugs are found =

and fixed.

Please take a look at the document and tell us, what you think about the =

contract and the approach.

Thanks,
Abdullah, Ian, Yingyi, and Till

[1] =

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QJ8X7QFMMax5D5k9RVje6hoNr_SNZSW9Oshzv=
7DpcQw/edit?usp=3Dsharing
[2] http://mockito.org/