+1<span></span><br><br>Den fredagen den 19:e juli 2013 skrev Summers Pittman:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 07/19/2013 03:27 AM, Karel Piwko wrote:<br>
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:58:01 +0200<br>
> Matthias Wessendorf <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'matzew@apache.org')">matzew@apache.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Karel Piwko <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'kpiwko@redhat.com')">kpiwko@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:18:40 -0300<br>
>>> Douglas Campos <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'qmx@qmx.me')">qmx@qmx.me</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Thanks Karel for the well balanced email.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> This discussion will never reach an agreement, because it's a biased<br>
>>>> discussion, and we do have personal preferences involved - I for one<br>
>>>> can't stand Groovy.<br>
>>> We need to reach at some for of (temporary) agreement. QE needs to continue<br>
>>> developing tests and so far we are simply "stuck" in the middle of<br>
>>> discussion<br>
>>> whether to continue with current tooling or not.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> My current preference is - long term - using Java.<br>
>><br>
>> IMO this does NOT need to be ported now, as we speak, but soon.<br>
> Sounds like a plan. We'll continue sending PRs in Groovy and revisit the code<br>
> early Sep then.<br>
+1<br>
>><br>
>> After my vacation (End of August / early Sep.) I am happy to help porting<br>
>> the tests to Java, but not now.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -Matthias<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>>> And that's the reason I strongly advocate for keeping it to Java - this<br>
>>>> is a Groovy vs Java, while it should've been X vs Java - Scala specs2,<br>
>>>> RSpec (via JRuby), Jasmine or Mocha (via DynJS or Rhino) - Heck, even<br>
>>>> Clojure would be easier to work than Java.<br>
>>> Cradle of best Czech beer for anybody who adds Arquillian support into<br>
>>> Jasmine or Mocha ;-)<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Unless we have a broad discussion over all those languages (which<br>
>>>> honestly I don't think we have time for that) we should stick to the<br>
>>>> lowest common denominator, which is (unfortunately) Java.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> fwiw, I can see the value of s/Groovy/dynamic JVM lang for tests/ - any<br>
>>>> of them would fit the bill - what I can't let go is the partiality of<br>
>>>> the debate.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 01:03:43PM +0200, Karel Piwko wrote:<br>
>>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> let me summarize the discussion from previous threads:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> What were testing requirements?<br>
>>>>> * Do not mock<br>
>>>>> * Cover both backend and frontend testing at the same time<br>
>>>>> * Control test env from tests/Maven, so it runs on both CI and local<br>
>>> machine<br>
>>>>> without any setup required<br>
>>>>> => Those 3 requirements limited us to use Arquillian<br>
>>>>> * Cover unified push server specifications in readable way<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Why Groovy instead of Java?<br>
>>>>> + Better support for JSON<br>
>>>>> + Spock provides very nice BDD support<br>
>>>>> + Still supports anything Java would do<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> What problems we faced with Groovy?<br>
>>>>> - Needs specific compiler - solved, configured for tests only<br>
>>>>> - Needs support in IDE - Intellij - ootb, Eclipse and NetBeans have<br>
>>>>> plugins<br>
>>>>> - Needs to be deployed in test deployment - not addressed now,<br>
>>> prolongs test<br>
>>>>> execution by few seconds per deployment<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> What are currently raised concerns?<br>
>>>>> - Different language for development and testing<br>
>>>>> - Raises bar for newcomers willing to write tests<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Thank you for additional advantages, concerns or proving some of those<br>
>>> are<br>
>>>>> not valid.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Karel<br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org')">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org')">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org')">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org')">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>