11:12 p.m.
Hi everybody,
I resumed my Security addon development and reached my "favorite" point:
writing and executing UI command tests. I have attached here the output of
the test harness as well as the sample test that I wrote.
Here are some observations:
- It took one minute for Forge to run a simple UI test. And this is on
Linux. From my experience, if I run the same test on Windows, it would take
at least twice more
- Even though Lincoln explained it to me at least twice, setting up
@Deployment @AddonDependencies and AddonDependencyEntry's is still black
magic to me. I usually copy those hoping that I didn't miss anything, but
the result of this test proves that I missed something
- For the most part the test was starting furnace, checking the missing
dependencies, installing them one by one, but in the mean time it installed
their transitive dependencies and for each of these operations, Forge was
again shutting down and starting up furnace and weld. And then again
calculating missing dependencies. Most of these operations take usually
less than a second, but still there are so many of them that at the end it
piles up to a whole minute
- To be fair, some big chunks of this minute was taken by, what it seems
to me, resolution of transitive dependencies:
Dec 22, 2014 11:15:49 PM org.jboss.forge.furnace.impl.addons.AddonRunnable
run
INFO: >> Started container
[org.jboss.forge.addon:ui-test-harness,2.13.1-SNAPSHOT] - 133ms
Dec 22, 2014 11:15:58 PM
org.jboss.forge.furnace.manager.impl.request.DeployRequestImpl deploy
INFO: Deploying addon org.jboss.forge.addon:parser-xml,2.13.1-SNAPSHOT
....
Dec 22, 2014 11:16:12 PM org.jboss.forge.furnace.impl.addons.AddonRunnable
run
INFO: >> Started container [org.jboss.forge.addon:javaee,2.13.1-SNAPSHOT] -
1802ms
Dec 22, 2014 11:16:24 PM
org.jboss.forge.furnace.manager.impl.request.DeployRequestImpl deploy
INFO: Deploying addon org.jboss.forge.addon:maven,2.13.1-SNAPSHOT
- The test failed with the following exception:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Test runner could not locate test class
[org.jboss.forge.addon.javaee.security.ui.SecuritySetupCommandTest] in any
deployed Addon.
at
org.jboss.forge.arquillian.ForgeTestMethodExecutor.invoke(ForgeTestMethodExecutor.java:234)
at
org.jboss.arquillian.container.test.impl.execution.RemoteTestExecuter.execute(RemoteTestExecuter.java:109)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at org.jboss.arquillian.core.impl.ObserverImpl.invoke(ObserverImpl.java:94)
at
org.jboss.arquillian.core.impl.EventContextImpl.invokeObservers(EventContextImpl.java:99)
...
However, the real reason was hidden in the massive console output a bit
above it:
Dec 22, 2014 11:16:25 PM
org.jboss.weld.bootstrap.MissingDependenciesRegistry
handleResourceLoadingException
INFO: WELD-000119: Not generating any bean definitions from
org.jboss.forge.addon.javaee.security.ui.SecuritySetupCommandTest because
of underlying class loading error: Type
org.jboss.forge.addon.javaee.ProjectHelper from [Module
"_DEFAULT_:2fba4fbf-9342-4566-9879-eebe1b753d2d_3ccd4af3-6ec9-4385-9aab-1693a53753fa"
from AddonModuleLoader] not found. If this is unexpected, enable DEBUG
logging to see the full error.
Enough with the observations. What can we do about it? Well, I see the
following areas of improvement:
- Fight the black magic. It shouldn't be so hard to setup a test. What I
usually need is a UI test harness, project utilities, sometimes a parser
and the addon that I am testing
- Fight the slow startup time. So, we are using Arquillian. Imagine how
would you feel if Arquillian was setting up from scratch Wildfly or (oh
my!) WebLogic every time you run a Java EE test? Instead, it just relies on
the fact that the target runtime is there
So, can't we just create a composite test addon or something like that?
That we use as kind of arquillian container and we just update the needed
addons there. Instead of setting up everything from scratch. And in the
@Deployment method we simply list the addons (or even at smaller
granularity: files) that are changed and we want to be redeployed on top.
This doesn't look too far away form the Arquillian model that we are all
used to. And I believe that will be much faster to start (especially in the
so called 'remote' arquillian mode).
What do you think?
Cheers,
Ivan