directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DNS] Trunk or branch for DNS work?
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:47:15 GMT
On Nov 13, 2007 4:49 PM, Enrique Rodriguez <enriquer9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 12:36 PM, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...
> > One reason to keep them together for now is due to the changelog
> > effort which will speed up all the tests.  When I start doing this
> > it's nice to have all the networked integration tests in one place.
> > Then if you want to open discussions on messing with this convention
> > that's up to you.
>
> OK, I'll put stable tests into 'server-unit'.  However, I would like
> to *only temporarily* add integration tests to the kerberos-client.

This makes sense and the kerberos client is not part of ApacheDS.  You
just need to watch for cyclic dependencies between the server and the
client as we start using the clients in the server tests and the
server in the client tests.

We need to figure out a good strategy for dealing with unit and
integration tests in the client project.  Perhaps some kind of policy
is needed there.

Perhaps if the test scope is used in the pom for dependencies across
the client and server projects these will not register as cyclic
dependencies between their modules. Something to look into but off the
top of my head I think the Maven's test scope is the key.

> These integration tests would test the alpha-quality kerberos-client
> against the full ApacheDS backend.  The reason I wouldn't put them
> directly into server-unit is that the kerberos-client should be
> considered unstable so I wouldn't want to put it near trunk.

This is fine if we're using the clients with test scope.

> course, once I've tested it more and it appears stable, then we can
> use it to replace the JAAS Kerberos client in server-unit and get both
> test coverage for the Kerberos protocol and its interactions via SASL
> GSSAPI.

You are being overly cautious on the wrong front here.  If this client
code is just used for tests (with test scope) then the clients will
not be
packaged with the product.

I don't know if I expressed myself well enough but do you see what I mean?

> Also, I would like to pass integration tests through my personal
> sandbox since I need to test on multiple machines and VMs and to
> simply back-up work, but, again, you can expect them to work their way
> into server-unit shortly.

That's a good idea and I appreciate your doing that. Feel free to just
branch for the specific purpose of adding these tests then we can
merge it back.  You can branch into the branches folders if you
prefer.  Just keep the scope contained to adding tests and correcting
bugs if your tests flush them out.  You are doing great by adding
tests for existing features.  You are not adding new features without
tests, so there is no reason to keep your effort in a sandbox.  Tests
are good things which should be given more leeway in the review
process.

Alex

Mime
View raw message