Since these tests use real server(s), many of them test not only the
client behaviour (generating correct commands according to the
protocol), but server, too. While this is practical (we need to test
server somehow, too), there's nothing all the tests across languages
will have physically in common and all comparison is prone to human error.

If we want to test various implementations of the client, maybe it would
make sense to give the clients a fake server that will have just a
scenario of expected commands to receive and pre-defined responses. We
could use audit log to generate such scenario based on the actual Java
tests.

But then we'd have to test the actual behaviour on server, and we'd need
a way to issue the commands.

Just my 2c

Radim

On 04/11/2017 02:33 PM, Martin Gencur wrote:
> Hello all,
> we have been working on https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-7120.
>
> Anna has finished the first step from the JIRA - collecting information
> about tests in the Java HotRod client test suite (including server
> integration tests) and it is now prepared for wider review.
>
> She created a spreadsheet [1]. The spread sheet includes for each Java
> test its name, the suggested target package in the TCK, whether to
> include it in the TCK or not, and some other notes. The suggested
> package also poses grouping for the tests (e.g. tck.query, tck.near,
> tck.xsite, ...)
>
> Let me add that right now the goal is not to create a true TCK [2]. The
> goal is to make sure that all implementations of the HotRod protocol
> have sufficient test coverage and possibly the same server side of the
> client-server test (including the server version and configuration).
>
> What are the next step?
>
> * Please review the list (at least a quick look) and see if some of the
> tests which are NOT suggested for the TCK should be added or vice versa.
> * I suppose the next step would then be to check other implementations
> (C#, C++, NodeJS, ..) and identify tests which are missing there (there
> will surely be some).
> * Gradually implement the missing tests in the other implementations
>     Note: Here we should ensure that the server is configured in the same
> way for all implementations. One way to achieve this (thanks Anna for
> suggestion!) is to have a shell/batch scripts for CLI which would be
> executed before the tests. This can probably be done for all impls. and
> both UNIX/WINDOWS. I also realize that my PR for ISPN [3] becomes
> useless because it uses Creaper (Java) and we need a language-neutral
> solution for configuring the server.
>
> Some other notes:
> * there are some duplicated tests in hotrod-client and server
> integration test suites, in this case it probably makes sense to only
> include in the TCK the server integration test
> * tests from the hotrod-client module which are supposed to be part of
> the TCK should be copied to the server integration test suite one day
> (possibly later)
>
> Please let us know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bZBBi5m4oLL4lBTZhdRbIC_EA0giQNDZWzFNPWrF5G4/edit#gid=0
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Compatibility_Kit
> [3] https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/5012
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev


--
Radim Vansa <rvansa@redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team

_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev