Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 99559 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2006 23:25:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2006 23:25:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 1123 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2006 23:25:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 1068 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2006 23:25:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 1057 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jan 2006 23:25:18 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:25:18 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of david.blevins@visi.com designates 208.42.156.9 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.42.156.9] (HELO cenn.mc.mpls.visi.com) (208.42.156.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:25:17 -0800 Received: from [192.168.42.19] (68-171-56-105.vnnyca.adelphia.net [68.171.56.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cenn.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B255C8336 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:24:56 -0600 (CST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8230691B-0E4C-4CC0-B99C-BFF70559D32D@visi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Blevins Subject: Re: Test strategy Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:24:49 -0800 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:12 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote: > On the list of Dain's "Roamap, tasks and things to do" list, > integration tests that cover servlets, webservices and jms was quite > at the top. > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg16593.html > > I would like to propose the following test strategy. > > 1. Fix existing openejb itests such that they can be reintegrated back > into the builds. > > 2. Create a testing subproject first in the sandbox that can be used > to test other services and components. This subproject will use maven > 2. Integration test is already a phase in the Maven2 lifecycle. > > 3. Create a new deployment plugin for maven 2 for use by the testing > subproject. A new one is needed because the openejb itests still use > maven 1. > > 4. As the test suite grows, we can move the subproject from sandbox to > the main branch/trunk. Hopefully by then, openejb will have come out > of it's incubator status for it's itests to join the rest. > > What say you all ? Comments, advice, suggestions more than welcome. > This is a good initative. Couple notes off the top of my head. A clarification on step 1 would be that we need to run the itest on each assembly we create. Don't mind if they are off by default and run only when we build in continuum, but in each assemblies module after an assembly is built is where they need to execute. If we wanted to build the new itests in maven 2, that'd be ok. We just need to make sure they run on our assemblies, which use maven 1. We wouldn't need a maven 2 version of our deployment plugin unless we started building the assemblies with maven 2. If more working itests start showing up, i'd be fine with an itests module next to applications, assemblies, configs, etc.. We'd just want to make sure that the test we add are actually running with the main build and not just a bunch of test-to-get-working-someday like David J. and I did when we tried to create itests about this time in '04. Thoughts? -David