river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Costers <jonathan.cost...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: ServiceDiscoveryManager test coverage
Date Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:44:05 GMT
I have to agree with Sim here ...

I'd say (if it were entirely up to me):
1. backout the changes
2. make sure the current QA tests run
3. add categories servicediscovery,discoveryservice,io and security to the
QA test categories to run by Hudson, one by one
4. make sure these QA tests run as well
5. piece by piece, restore the changes and keep an eye on any tests failing.
In parallel, keep validating and adding more QA test categories.

This would allow us to work in a more structured manner, and to perform peer
reviews on bite size changes.
We have to better organize ourselves, considering the limited resources we
have.

To summarize:
- the changes to RemoteEvent etc. caused many discovery related tests to
fail
- the changes to ClassLoading caused some classloading / io related tests to
fail
- the changes to DynamicPolicyProvider caused security (and other) tests to
fail

And that's what I found after going through it very quickly and backing out
some obvious things.
These actually look more like experiments than actual tested changes.
IMO, this kind of experimentation should probably be done in a skunk branch,
not the trunk.

If for any reason, my understanding is incorrect, and backing out is not an
option, then I would suggest to at least create a JIRA issue for each of the
above topics.

Thanks
Jonathan

2010/9/1 Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au>

> Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>
>> On 09/01/2010 01:16 AM, Jonathan Costers wrote:
>>
>>> Similarly, having backed out the RemoteEvent changes, and running the
>>> "discoveryservice" category:
>>>
>>
>> It looks to me, that the code in the trunk was not completely ready.
>>
>
> It looks that way.
>
>
>  Would it be a good idea to revert the changes until the unit tests run
>> again, and build a branch in svn to continue the work?
>>
>
> Let me get my head around understanding the failures first before we
> revert.
>
>
>
>
>> If a committer (with svn access) needs help, i can offer some assistance.
>>
>
> Thanks ;) much appreciated.
>
>>
>> Gr. Sim
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message