[jbpm-dev] jbpm human task core tests refactorings <- feedback plz!

Fri May 11 18:16:39 EDT 2012

@Marco: Hehe totally agree with the approach. I just don't want to make
those reports looks better, I want to be sure that the code that we have is
good.

I've already migrated the changes to the transport projects, which it was
easier than I thought, meaning that the changes doesn't affect too much. I
will delete all the commented classes as well.

I'm ready to push now, but I will wait for a while to see if I get more
feedback. I'm confident with fixing issues with the callbacks if they
appear. If you guys knows where the callbacks are being used in the
jbpm-console please let me know.
Cheers

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Marco Rietveld <mrietvel at redhat.com>wrote:

>  Oh yeah: coverage reports.
>
> IMHO, coverage reports are like weather reports: good to check now and
> then, but not something you want to plan around.
> Also, wrt agile/efficiency, we're better off making sure that the tests do
> actually test what we want them to -- which is pretty much exactly what
> you've been doing, Mauricio.
>
> 11-05-12 11:36, Maciej Swiderski:
>
> +1 for cleaning up the test, it takes quite some time to run all of them.
>
> Regarding changes of package good to keep in mind:
> - installer stuff that it declares DefaultUserGroupCallback in both
> web.xml and jbpm.usergroup.callback.properties.
> - human task war tests could declare...
>
> There should be LDAPUserInfo class that could go into identity package as
> well.
>
> Coverage report look quite ok :) and improvement is always welcome.
>
> Cheers
> Maciej
>
> 2012/5/11 Mauricio Salatino <salaboy at gmail.com>
>
>> Sure, I will do that if all the other points make sense, and I will not
>> push the commented out tests :)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Marco Rietveld <mrietvel at redhat.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Mauricio,
>>>
>>> Feel free to delete the code instead of commenting it out, especially if
>>> you can't use @Ignore.
>>>
>>> Commented out code is more often confusing than not. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marco
>>>
>>> 11-05-12 10:46, Mauricio Salatino:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>> I was working yesterday trying to understand why we have 390 test
>>> running inside jbpm-human-task-core and if they are really necessary.
>>> This is my initial approach so forgive me if I'm missing something, the
>>> following notes and changes are what I found until now:
>>>
>>>  1)  All the test classes using directly TaskClient should be removed,
>>> now everything should go through TaskService and AsyncTaskService
>>> test which are placed inside async and sync. For that reason all the
>>> test inside org.jbpm.task.service are commented out.
>>> I've checked that all the test classes that were using TaskClient now
>>> has their correspondency inside the org.jbpm.task.service.base.async
>>> package.
>>> Where the only important change is from TaskClient to AsyncTaskService.
>>> We were running the same tests for both wasting a lot of time.
>>> Now the base.sync package tests everything using the TaskService
>>> interface. Right now there are not the same tests for the sync and the
>>> async interface but I can migrate them soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>  2) Reviewing the org.jbpm.task.service package I found all the
>>> UserGroupCallback tests and the class called BaseTestNoUserGroupSetup,
>>> which basically run almost
>>> all the test using no hardcoded users and using the UserCallbacks
>>> resolutions. Talking yesterday with Tiho, we both agree that we should
>>> remove the tests
>>> that are using hardcoded users and just leave the one that are using
>>> callbacks to avoid running unnecessary tests. Just doing this we will
>>> remove a lot of overhead
>>> and we can have a simplified way of organizing and running the tests.
>>> I've moved all the UserGroupCallback tests to the async package and migrate
>>> them to use the AsyncTaskService instead of the TaskClient.
>>>
>>>  3) I've created a package called org.jbpm.task.identity to place the
>>> LDAP stuff which is ignored and the UserGroupCallBack stuff that is not
>>> using the TaskService/TaskClient stuff, when I was doing that I notice that
>>> those tests uses some properties files that needs to be placed inside the
>>> same package structure to be picked up, for that reason I've moved two
>>> classes inside src/main/java to the following new
>>> package: org.jbpm.task.identity -> UserGroupCallbackManager,
>>> UserGroupCallback, DefaultUserGroupCallbackImpl, LDAPUserGroupCallbackImpl,
>>> which I believe that is better than have the UserGroupCallback stuff mixed
>>> with the task.service stuff. I notice that the
>>> package: org.jbpm.task.service is a wild area, that we should avoid as much
>>> as possible. I know that this is a change that can impact in other modules
>>> like the jbpm-console but I think that it will avoid future troubles. I
>>> really need your feedback on this.. to see if you guys think that this can
>>> cause a lot of troubles.
>>>
>>>  4) for the same reason as 1 I've commented out all the tests
>>> inside org.jbpm.task.service.test, those were using the TaskClient and
>>> because the async and sync test are already provided we don't miss
>>> anything. The only thing that we need to do inside
>>> the org.jbpm.task.service.test package is to align these tests to cover all
>>> the base async and sync tests, which is not the case right now, but it's
>>> simple to do it.
>>>
>>>  5) I've added covertura to the jbpm-human-task-core project to do an
>>> initial analysis about what we are covering with our tests. Attached is the
>>> initial chart that I would love to see improved in the following months :)
>>>
>>>
>>>  6) I need to work on the other modules to propagate these changes as
>>> well, but for doing that I need your feedback on the previous points, I
>>> think that during the weekend I will be able to finish the other modules,
>>> if we all are OK with this suggestions.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
>>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>>
>>>  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   --
>>> jBPM/Drools developer
>>> Utrecht, the Netherlands
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>
>>  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbpm-dev mailing list
>> jbpm-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbpm-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> jBPM/Drools developer
> Utrecht, the Netherlands
>
>

-- 
 - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar

 - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbpm-dev/attachments/20120511/9f8579d3/attachment-0001.html 