axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Jellinghaus <>
Subject RE: [GUMP] Function Test Failure - Axis
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:10:03 GMT
At 05:41 PM 6/14/2001 -0400, Glen Daniels wrote:
>WRT the file transport in general, I'm not opposed to keeping it, but I'd
>really like to see it get cleaned up if it's going to stick around.  There
>should be better (i.e. some :)) synchronization between the two sides, and
>the file-numbering scheme seems brittle.

I tend to prefer this (fix the underlying problem in the test) to:

>> What I would like to do is to focus on factor out the 
>> transport tests from
>> the tests which are simply intended to test the end-to-end 
>> operation of the
>> system.

Factoring them into groups is fine, but *all* tests should be reliably
runnable as part of the nightly build process, so we have an automated
smoke test for as much functionality as possible.

I consider the transports to be an integral part of the end-to-end system
operation.  A reliable transport test should work reliably when connecting
to a server which was launched by the test harness.  If we aren't regularly
testing all the transports, we're asking for trouble -- some of the tests
(especially addressbook!) exercise transport functionality (cookies) which
isn't exercised elsewhere.

Additionally, the tcp and http transports -- modulo the issue -- have never exhibited any flakiness in the
functional test suite.  (have they?)

I would suggest the following test targets:

package-tests	package tests, not including transports
local-tests		tests using the local transport only, within one process
remote-tests	tests using transports between two processes
functional-tests	local-tests & remote-tests
all-tests		package-tests & functional-tests

with GUMP building all-tests.  (How does GUMP know which target to build?)

Not great names, but the alternatives aren't great either....

View raw message