harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paulex Yang <paulex.y...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib] jetty based tests
Date Tue, 23 May 2006 13:42:06 GMT
Stepan Mishura wrote:
> Hi George, Paulex,
>
> Thanks for your answers. As a preliminary result - your convinced me 
> and I'm
> going to be volunteer to evaluate jetty integration to classlib test 
> suite.
>
Great, thank you, Stepan!

> Do anybody work on integrating jetty http server to move net tests out of
> exclude list?

I'd like to try. :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> On 5/23/06, George Harley <george.c.harley@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> > Hi George, Tim
>> >
>> > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
>> > 1) Configuring
>> > As I understood we say that the server is 'embedded' when we can
>> > start/stop
>> > it within Ant without additional configuration steps. And all we need
>> > to do
>> > is just download required jars. Right?
>> >
>> > What about Eclipse users?
>>
>> Hi Stepan,
>>
>> In addition to be being start-able, stop-able and configurable from Ant
>> and XML config files, Jetty can also be embedded into the Java code of a
>> test case or test suite. Configuration, starting and stopping are all
>> possible. Eclipse users should not be disadvantaged.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 2) Time to run test suite
>> > May be it is hard to estimate but anyway - will the test suite run
>> > slow down
>> > if we'll use jetty instead of mock objects? How much?
>>
>> Depends on configuration. Configure and start the server in the setup()
>> of a JUnit TesCase (and stopping the server in the teardown()) would
>> obviously be slower than doing the equivalent in a JUnit TestSetup
>> descendent. Start up is a lot less than half a second on my machine.
>>
>> Is there some performance benchmark for tests that is at risk here ?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 3) Testing
>> > Quoting Tim from 'local server thread': "There is no way to force a
>> > server
>> > to send you a chunked response using regular HTTP headers, so in this
>> > case
>> > the server and client have an understanding that when the client asks
>> > for a
>> > particular resource the server will send it back in chunks."
>> >
>> > With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
>> > demonstrates the possible way. Also are we going to create negative
>> > tests,
>> > for example, for broken server response? I think yes. Can jetty server
>> be
>> > used for negative testing?
>>
>> Yes. You can send back any error.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > See other comments below
>> >
>> > On 5/22/06, George Harley wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> >> > On 5/19/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> > I'm OK only if we separate tests with Jetty from common test

>> suite
>> >> >> run.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Because each external dependency complicates 'normal' test suite
>> >> run ( I
>> >> > don't want to face with situation when to run Harmony test suite I
>> >> > have to
>> >> > configure and run 20 different external servers even they are easy
>> >> > configurable). As far as I remember we agreed to use mock objects -
>> so
>> >> > let's
>> >> > use them! For example, in this case there is no need in jetty 
>> server.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer to separate such
>> >> > tests.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Stepan.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hi Stepan,
>> >>
>> >> Just seen this note and think that my previous append on the "Re: svn
>> >> commit: r407752" thread sums up my thoughts. Allow me to quote 
>> myself:
>> >>
>> >> <paste>
>> >> Jetty or equivalent is a good basis for such local server stubs. 
>> It is
>> >> fast, it is lightweight,
>> >
>> >
>> > Fast and lightweight as what?
>> > I saw sometimes ago java server that has jar size 4k. And
>> > jetty-6.0.0beta6.jar is 423k size.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Not sure of your point here. Is there some test file footprint benchmark
>> that is at risk here ? If there is a better, faster, more lightweight
>> server that would suit our purposes then let's hear about it so that we
>> can investigate whether or not it may be used with our network tests.
>>
>> >
>> >> it can be started and stopped very simply from
>> >> within Ant (so that it only runs for the duration of a specified 
>> batch
>> >> of unit tests) and may also be completely controlled from Java test
>> code
>> >> so that we can configure its behaviour for any test case from within
>> >> that test case.
>> >
>> >
>> > Good.
>> >
>> > It's architecture means that we do not have to run it as
>> >> a complete web server but can stub out any aspect of its runtime
>> >> behaviour we wish in order to suit the purposes of the test(s).
>> >
>> >
>> > What about 'chunked response'? Can a testcase force jetty server to
>> > send it
>> > a chunked response?
>>
>> Yes. The API provides options to do this. Chunks are encoded as per
>> RFC2616.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> George
>>
>> >
>> > I don't really understand why such network tests making use of a 
>> small,
>> >> embedded server running locally would need to be considered as 
>> outside
>> >> of the "normal test flow".
>> >> </paste>
>> >
>> >
>> > Because I consider adding jetty server as precedent for adding other
>> > dependencies to the "normal test flow". I believe that "normal test
>> flow"
>> > should be fast and lightweight as much as possible. Each additional
>> > dependency or configuration step adds a brick(even it light) to
>> > developer's
>> > large. As the result classlib test suite may become very slow and hard
>> to
>> > configure. All I want is to understand - do we really need jetty 
>> server
>> > inside it.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Stepan.
>> >
>> > We are not talking about an external server here and we are not 
>> talking
>> >> about developers having to carry out complex configuration manoeuvres
>> >> when running the tests. That is something that nobody wants. The
>> >> motivation here is purely to get more of the java.net tests out of 
>> the
>> >> "excludes" sin bin.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> George
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> >> Tim
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> >> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>> harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message