<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Mauricio, <br>
<br>
Feel free to delete the code instead of commenting it out,
especially if you can't use @Ignore. <br>
<br>
Commented out code is more often confusing than not. :) <br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Marco<br>
<br>
11-05-12 10:46, Mauricio Salatino:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANzbnyUyf564A=wzYRB6rowB1=dfDmZMZfP9CMbhWiby_ejN+w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hi guys,
<div>I was working yesterday trying to understand why we have <span
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">390 test running
inside jbpm-human-task-core and if they are really necessary.</span></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px">This is
my initial approach so forgive me if I'm missing something,
the following notes and changes are what I found until now:</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px">1)
</span></font><span
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">All the test
classes using directly TaskClient should be removed, now
everything should go through TaskService and AsyncTaskService </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">test which
are placed inside async and sync. For that reason all the test
inside org.jbpm.task.service are commented out.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">I've
checked that all the test classes that were using TaskClient
now has their correspondency inside the </span><span
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">org.jbpm.task.service.base.</span><span
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">async package.</span></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px">Where the
only important change is from TaskClient
to AsyncTaskService. We were running the same tests for both
wasting a lot of time.</span></font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">Now the
base.sync package tests everything using</span><font
class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, sans-serif"
color="#222222"> the TaskService interface. Right now there
are not the same tests for the sync and the </font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, sans-serif"
color="#222222">async interface but I can migrate them soon. </font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">2)
Reviewing the org.jbpm.task.service package I found all the
UserGroupCallback tests and the class
called BaseTestNoUserGroupSetup, which basically run almost</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">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 </span></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px">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</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px">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. </span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px">3) </span></font><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">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.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">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.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">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 :) </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">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.</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">Cheers</span></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Helvetica"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:12px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12px"><br>
</span></font>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
- MyJourney @ <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salaboy.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://salaboy.wordpress.com</a>
<div>
- Co-Founder @ <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.jugargentina.org" target="_blank">http://www.jugargentina.org</a><br>
- Co-Founder @ <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.jbug.com.ar" target="_blank">http://www.jbug.com.ar</a><br>
<br>
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
jBPM/Drools developer
Utrecht, the Netherlands</pre>
</body>
</html>