[wildfly-dev] Elytron integration tests in WildFly testsuite

[Darran Lofthouse]

Although after my e-mail I hear from Josef they do want to duplicate all ;-)

 From my perspective I think we want to ensure the security tests are 
clearly split in some way so we can identify legacy tests and Elytron 
tests independently.

When it comes to code review the legacy tests are much more about 
backwards compatibility so any changes to those should be given greater 
scrutiny.

Secondly we should hit a point where we can remove the old tests so 
separation will make that easier.

A package split would be fine but maybe a project split would make it 
easier to define which tests are run and when.

Instead maybe we could split it into three: -

basic, basic-legacy-security, basic-security

The two 'security' projects would be the different form of security 
testing, maybe the 'basic' project could have an optional profile to 
switch it to a 100% legacy config mode.


On 02/12/16 11:37, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
> That is probably fine, but! it should be done differently.
>
> instead of duplicating whole testsuite (and adding extra hour to
> execution and extra headaches with intermittent problems and duplication
> of maintenance)
> I would suggest that all security related tests get extracted to new
> "security" testsuite module and than only that part is duplicated.
>
> This way we will have all security related stuff in one place.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Darran Lofthouse
> <darran.lofthouse at jboss.com <mailto:darran.lofthouse at jboss.com>> wrote:
>
>     Probably should add - any duplication should only be for security tests
>     - not everything else in there!
>
>     On 02/12/16 11:08, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>     > On 02/12/16 11:03, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
>     >>
>     >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Josef Cacek <jcacek at redhat.com
>     <mailto:jcacek at redhat.com>
>     >> <mailto:jcacek at redhat.com <mailto:jcacek at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>     The modules would just live side by side - basic would use
>     Elytron
>     >>     configuration, basic-legacy-security would use configuration
>     similar
>     >>     to (or same as) the current server configuration.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> What would this actually mean?
>     >> we will have two copies basic tests suites one running with elytron
>     >> another with legacy security subsystem?
>     >>
>     >> Do I read that right? Please say I am not.
>     >
>     > That is correct - we have two security implementations they both need
>     > testing.
>     >
>     > One needs testing for backwards compatibility and regressions, the
>     other
>     > for equivalent behaviour and then new features and bugs.
>     >
>     > Needing to test both was discussed previously so this is more
>     about how
>     > to separate both and also give the Elytron testing a good
>     foundation to
>     > start from.
>     >
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> wildfly-dev mailing list
>     >> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>     <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
>     >>
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     wildfly-dev mailing list
>     wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>     <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
>
>