[aerogear-dev] PushEE testing POC

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko at redhat.com> wrote:

> Well, we have 3 options where to put tests:
>
> 1/ Have them tightly integrated - that would be src/test
> 2/ Have them next to actual code - that's current proposal
> 3/ Have them in separate repository - that's Matthias option
>
> I chose 2/ because that way people are not required to setup anything to
>

well, it's not really tied to the maven default layout;
folks have to explictily cd into the "tests" folder, at root level;
Also, I guess you need separated CI hooks for that




> code on the component while being aware something like integration tests
> exists and it's not that difficult to fix them if broken by your last
> commit.
>

fair point, but they can be always executed against the latest snapshot.



> That's the main reason why I do not like 3/, separate lifecycle for tests
> adds
> entry barrier for test development and maintenance.


cd tests (at root level), make this already very similar to a separate
project, hence it has
an individual "lifecycle", right ?



> Option 1/ is the best if
> the set of test tools is stable, which is unfortunately not the case yet,
> unfortunately.
>

For me, personally src/test is more for unit/mock testing. But that's just
personal preference.




>
> Personally, I do not like integration tests being kept separately. With
> Arquillian, the boundary between integration and unit test is very blur, so
> so the only point keeping tests separated is developer turnaround - test
> execution feedback should be quick. So, if you guys figure out that
> integration
> tests take too much time in future, I'd opt for making smoke profile with a
> subset of selected tests and full profile for CI purposes.
>
> Karel
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:30:24 -0300
> Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Karel, why do not follow conventions? src/test?
> >
> >
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html
> >
> > Karel Piwko wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I've just sent a PR for PushEE testing [1]. The idea is to write tests
> > > covering specification and simply execute those against a real running
> > > server instance. More details at [2].
> > >
> > > I have evaluated multiple API approaches, described here[3], Groovy and
> > > Spock seems to be the best to me.
> > >
> > > Any comments/suggestions/objections very welcomed. My plan is to start
> > > covering specs we have so far and run it on a CI server.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Karel
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/matzew/pushee/pull/6/
> > > [2] https://github.com/kpiwko/pushee/blob/tests/tests/readme.txt
> > > [3] https://gist.github.com/kpiwko/5612949
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130521/360a1dae/attachment.html