harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From George Harley <george.c.har...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: local test server (Was: Re: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-71) java.net.URLConnection.setUseCaches throws unspecified IllegalAccessError)
Date Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:24:45 GMT
Mark Hindess wrote:
> I think it might help this disagreement if we step back and decide
> what scenarios for running tests we are trying to optimise.
Disagreement ? What ? On this mailing list ? :-)

> Personally, whenever I write tests I'm doing it to optimise the
> scenario where a new users comes to the project and does:
> 1$ svn co ... classlib # or wget/tar if you prefer
> 2$ cd classlib/make
> 3$ ant test
> I do this because I want the tests to be easy to run by new users
> particularly on new platforms.  I hope making it this easy means we
> get more people running tests and that we get a broader set of results
> than we could acheive ourselves.
> This scenario becomes slightly less pleasant if, between steps 2 and
> 3, [*] you have to find your nearest Linux machine and install Apache
> httpd, your-favourite-ftp-server, Dante socks server, etc.  This
> typically means that I'd be inclined to write stub servers to test
> against.
> But this doesn't mean George is wrong!  Because *if* there was a
> publically accessible Internet server that already had Apache httpd,
> twoftpd (my favourite ftp server this week), Dante socks, etc, then
> the scenario I like to optimise becomes possible.  The effort of
> setting up one hosting server is definitely cheaper than the effort of
> implementing stubs - I know because I set up the server George tests
> against and it didn't take much time at all.

Agreed : a central, publicly available test server that could be used 
for network-related testing would IMHO be advantageous to us all. I 
wonder if such a server can be supplied through the auspices of the ASF 
? Incidentally, it took me only a small amount of time to set up my 
laptop for running the tests on locally.

> Having one server means we wont get 1000's of users asking Apache
> httpd, twoftpd, Dante socks configuration questions on our mailing
> lists.  It also means we have a way to see the other half of the
> results - that is, the server logs.  (Stubs should make this easier
> and this cost should be considered too but if we ran the server we
> could make this easier.)
> George's approach continues to be cheaper even if a few groups have to
> set up there own servers - though I think the set of users who "don't
> have Internet access but do have a mechanism for getting up to date
> Harmony code" should be small and getting smaller.  Of course, it
> becomes much more expensive if everyone has to do it.

> I've never tried using George's approach on past projects because I've
> either also been writing server code, that can/should be used by
> tests, or because the server was massive and I didn't have the
> experience or resources to run a real server.  Because of this,
> initially, I was inclined to support the implemention of stubs, but
> now I'm not so certain.
> I think it basically comes down to whether or not we can provide a
> central server.  I'm not sure it's a simple question but for me this
> question is key to this issue.
> Or perhaps I'm optimising for the wrong scenario?
> Regards,
>  Mark.
> [*] More likely people would run step 3 find it goes horribly wrong
>     then read the README they ignored initially and discover why. ;-)

View raw message