[arquillian-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (ARQ-918) Pick a better name for testable attribute on @Deployment annotation

[Samuel Santos (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ARQ-918?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12692011#comment-12692011 ] 

Samuel Santos edited comment on ARQ-918 at 5/10/12 8:36 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------

Do we want to continue supporting "mixed-mode"?

Currently, this is possible doing something like this:

{code}
@RunWith(Arquillian.class)
public class ExampleIT {

    @Deployment
    public static WebArchive createDeployment() {
        // ...
    }

    @Test
    public void InContainerTest() {
        // ...
    }

    @Test
    @RunAsClient
    public void ClientTest(@ArquillianResource URL baseURL) {
        // ...
    }
}
{code}
                
      was (Author: Silenius):
    Do we want to continue supporting "mixed-mode"?

Currently, this is possible doing something like this:

{code}
@RunWith(Arquillian.class)
public class ExampleIT {

    @Deployment
    public static WebArchive createDeployment() {
        // ...
    }

    @Test
    public void InContainerTest() {
        // ...
    }

    @Test
    @RunAsClient
    public void InContainerTest(@ArquillianResource URL baseURL) {
        // ...
    }
}
{code}
                  
> Pick a better name for testable attribute on @Deployment annotation
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ARQ-918
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ARQ-918
>             Project: Arquillian
>          Issue Type: Enhancement
>      Security Level: Public(Everyone can see) 
>          Components: Base Implementation
>    Affects Versions: 1.0.0.Final
>            Reporter: Dan Allen
>
> @Deployment(testable = false) sends the wrong message for a testing platform and is subject to a wide variety of interpretations. We need a better name for this attribute.
> The purpose of this attribute is to determine if this deployment should be wrapped up based on the protocol so the test case can be executed inside the container.
> I'd be content if we gave it a very explicit name, even if that name wasn't tremendously fluent. Here are some suggestions:
> * transportsTest : Indicates whether this deployment will transport the test as part of the deployment so the it can be executed inside the container
> * testRunner : Indicates whether this deployment is itself a test runner, which by definition means it will be run inside the container
> * providesTestRunner : Mixed mode tests are possible, so this most accurately indicates whether this deployment will provide an additional test runner inside the container
> * hostsTest : Indicates whether the deployment will be a host to the test, so the test can be run inside the container
> * packageWithTest : Indicates whether this deployment will be packaged with the test and deployed to the server; when false, the deployment is left alone (not packaged with test)
> The hard part is that when the test is run in container, the @Deployment archive, the test and the test infrastructure often go into another archive that's the real deployment. So this is more of a directive of how to handle the @Deployment than it is about what role it will serve directly.
> I think that "testRunner" or "providesTestRunner" are the most clear options of the ones listed above.
> We can support this attribute as an alias to maintain backwards compatibility, marking testable as deprecated.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira