Seems to me that we might agree on moving tests into separate repository for
now while making them a part of src/test of the project itself once we
stabilize testing tools.
On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:11:42 +0200
Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Karel Piwko
> Well, we have 3 options where to put tests:
> 1/ Have them tightly integrated - that would be src/test
> 2/ Have them next to actual code - that's current proposal
> 3/ Have them in separate repository - that's Matthias option
> I chose 2/ because that way people are not required to setup anything to
well, it's not really tied to the maven default layout;
folks have to explictily cd into the "tests" folder, at root level;
Also, I guess you need separated CI hooks for that
Yes, we need to add one more Maven execution set up in CI.
> code on the component while being aware something like integration tests
> exists and it's not that difficult to fix them if broken by your last
fair point, but they can be always executed against the latest snapshot.
Yes, they will be no matter where the tests are put into. But "cd tests &
is much less effort compared to check CI job where tests actually are, clone,
fix and rerun.
> That's the main reason why I do not like 3/, separate lifecycle for tests
> entry barrier for test development and maintenance.
cd tests (at root level), make this already very similar to a separate
project, hence it has
an individual "lifecycle", right ?
It is a separate project. But lifecycle is shared.
> Option 1/ is the best if
> the set of test tools is stable, which is unfortunately not the case yet,
For me, personally src/test is more for unit/mock testing. But that's just
> Personally, I do not like integration tests being kept separately. With
> Arquillian, the boundary between integration and unit test is very blur, so
> so the only point keeping tests separated is developer turnaround - test
> execution feedback should be quick. So, if you guys figure out that
> tests take too much time in future, I'd opt for making smoke profile with a
> subset of selected tests and full profile for CI purposes.
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:30:24 -0300
> Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
> > Hi Karel, why do not follow conventions? src/test?
> > Karel Piwko wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I've just sent a PR for PushEE testing . The idea is to write
> > > covering specification and simply execute those against a real running
> > > server instance. More details at .
> > >
> > > I have evaluated multiple API approaches, described here, Groovy and
> > > Spock seems to be the best to me.
> > >
> > > Any comments/suggestions/objections very welcomed. My plan is to start
> > > covering specs we have so far and run it on a CI server.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Karel
> > >
> > >  https://github.com/matzew/pushee/pull/6/
> > >  https://github.com/kpiwko/pushee/blob/tests/tests/readme.txt
> > >  https://gist.github.com/kpiwko/5612949
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> aerogear-dev mailing list