syncope-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matteo Di Carlo <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Enduser Test Profile
Date Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:52:52 GMT
Hi Francesco,
yes, that's what I would like to do, so the new user profile would 
override existing plugin configurations. I undestand that would be the 
right solution.
Thank you.

On 21/11/2016 17:47, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
> On 21/11/2016 17:37, Matteo Di Carlo wrote:
>> Hi,
>> here <> 
>> is one possible solution I found today to run tests AND prepare a 
>> test environment in the same time. Test related plugins are included 
>> in a new profile.
>> This could be a good solution if the new profile is the only one 
>> using those plugins I think.
> With your changes, now enduser integration tests will fail during a plain
> mvn clean verify
> as the required plugins are not configured any more in the default 
> profile.
> This breaks the current set up.
> The point is that enduser integration tests involves both propagation 
> and execution:
> 1. propagation and execution must be *both run* during plain build 
> (e.g. "mvn clean verify")
> 2. propagation and execution must be *both skipped* if required (e.g. 
> in the skipTests profile)
> Essentially, you would like to add a new profile (say 'dev') where 
> preparation is run but execution is skipped - thus allowing for manual 
> tst execution against a fully-compliant test environment.
> Did I get it right?
> If so, you should not remove any line from the current 
> fit/enduser-reference/pom.xml but rather only add a new profile.
> Regards.
>> On 21/11/2016 09:43, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>> Matteo,
>>> please draft an updated
>>> fit/enduser-reference/pom.xml
>>> somewhere (gist, as suggested should be good enough) so that we can 
>>> take an effective look at the proposed changes.
>>> Thanks.
>>> Regards.
>>> On 18/11/2016 18:03, Andrea Patricelli wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I think that hacking the pom.xml of the fit/enduser cannot be a 
>>>> long lasting solution. So I agree about introducing a specific 
>>>> profile for developing of IT tests, it could help for the current 
>>>> developing needs.
>>>> It would also be cool to have more granularity and run specific 
>>>> tests using maven like Francesco pointed out.
>>>> Actually, as it seems to me, the main problem is that to develop 
>>>> and run an IT test for the enduser we must wait for the complete 
>>>> cargo system to startup, we have no granularity. It is not feasible 
>>>> while developing tests. We need to run single tests (while 
>>>> developing) against a running syncope environment (enduser ui + 
>>>> core), and at the moment AFAIK we are not able to run single tests 
>>>> through maven, we have to use js tools as Matteo said.
>>>> ​Best regards,
>>>> Andrea
>>>> Il giorno 18 nov 2016, 17:31, alle ore 17:31, Matteo Di Carlo 
>>>> <> ha scritto:
>>>>> On 18/11/2016 16:00, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/11/2016 15:20, Matteo Di Carlo wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> I would like to share some considerations about enduser testing.
>>>>>>> After tests have been written or updated we are able to run them
>>>>>>> manually through node and protractor directly from
>>>>>>> ${enduser-test.dir}: a directory created in /fit/enduser/target
>>>>>>> during pre-integration-test phase. During the same phase 
>>>>>>> protractor,
>>>>>>> phantomjs and node are installed too.
>>>>>>> Actually in the build cycle these four operations are skipped,
>>>>>>> every time we work on enduser tests we need to temporarily modify
>>>>>>> syncope-fit-enduser-reference pom to run tests manually.
>>>>>>> Could be usefull to create a Enduser test specific maven profile
>>>>>> Hi Matteo,
>>>>>> please go ahead and post your proposed changes to
>>>>>> fit/enduser-reference/pom.xml somewhere (Gist?), I am not sure to
>>>>>> understand why you need it: is your purpose to build an easy way
>>>>>> leave Syncope running with the ability to manually run some JS tests
>>>>>> against it?
>>>>>> In fit/core-reference you can achieve something similar by running
>>>>>> mvn -Pdebug
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> mvn -Pdebug,all
>>>>>> and then (for example)
>>>>>> mvn test -Dtest=GroupITCase
>>>>>> Is my understanding correct? Could you please provide a concrete
>>>>>> example, besides your proposed changes?
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>> correct. the goal is developing enduser tests in a faster way, but
>>>>> mainly I couldn't find where to run Node outside the enduser-test.dir
>>>>> if
>>>>> not created.
>>>>> We can run tests with mvn clean verify, but running them with node
>>>>> while
>>>>> developing brings few advantages :
>>>>> -we can choose which test to run, e.g. if we are working on a single
>>>>> test we don't have to run them all,
>>>>> -we can change protractor configuration, e.g. what browser to use for
>>>>> testing or the order with which we want to run tests, and see results
>>>>> without rebuild,
>>>>> -we can change html views (since protractor works with html 
>>>>> elements it
>>>>> can happen that we need to add tags to html files) and run the same
>>>>> test
>>>>> again.
>>>>> To achieve this goals everything I did is
>>>>> 1.    removing  <skipTests>true</skipTests> from every plugins
>>>>> excecute pre-integration-test phase,
>>>>> 2.    mvn -Pjrebel,
>>>>> 3.    move to enduser-test.dir
>>>>> 4.    write, modify tests or configuration files
>>>>> 5.    copy updated test files in enduser-test.dir
>>>>> 6.    delete test files  I'm not interested to, from enduser-test.dir
>>>>> 7.    run nodejs/node/node nodejs/bin/protractor 
>>>>> protractor-conf.js from enduser-test.dir
>>>>> So I think a appropriate profile could be a solution. Changes I 
>>>>> made to
>>>>> the pom is a quick solution to work temporarily.
>>>>> If there is a mvn parameter to force building Syncope without 
>>>>> skipping
>>>>> pre-integration-test phase would be much quicker !
>>>>> Matteo.

View raw message