Wooha, you've been busy since last i had a look! Nice! One comment of the top of my head: - Validation: a Deployment method is not required.

-aslak- ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Could you please review https://github.com/snjeza/arquillian-eclipse? > Your suggestions are welcome. > > Thanks, > Snjeza > >

Right, in that context it's needed. You'll need a Deployment to run "In Container", but you can run without a Deployment and just work as a standalone client. You can even run without any Container/Deployment support enabled at all, just as a common abstraction layer between different test frameworks, but... Let's assume the most common use case, which is having a Deployment, and leave it as is for now. -aslak- ----- Original Message ----- > On 16.10.2012 17:39, Aslak Knutsen wrote: > > > Wooha, you've been busy since last i had a look! Nice! > > One comment of the top of my head: > > - Validation: a Deployment method is not required. > The following is from the Getting started tutorial ( > http://arquillian.org/guides/getting_started/ ) : > > > Now, about that flair. An Arquillian test case must have three > things: > > 1. A @RunWith(Arquillian.class) annotation on the class > 2. A public static method annotated with @Deployment that returns > a ShrinkWrap archive > 3. At least one method annotated with @Test > > Snjeza > > > > -aslak- > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi, > > Could you please review https://github.com/snjeza/arquillian-eclipse > ? > Your suggestions are welcome. > > Thanks, > Snjeza >

Congratulations, Snjezana, this is really awesome !! /Xavier On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Snjezana Peco wrote: > I will add a preference that will enable/disable the > Deployment/Container validation. > Currently, the Run/Debug As Arquillian launch configuration requires > exactly one container implementation on the project's classpath. > > Snjeza > > On 16.10.2012 18:07, Aslak Knutsen wrote: >> Right, in that context it's needed. >> >> You'll need a Deployment to run "In Container", but you can run >> without a Deployment and just work as a standalone client. >> >> You can even run without any Container/Deployment support enabled at >> all, just as a common abstraction layer between different test >> frameworks, but... >> >> Let's assume the most common use case, which is having a Deployment, >> and leave it as is for now. >> >> -aslak- >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> On 16.10.2012 17:39, Aslak Knutsen wrote: >>> >>> >>> Wooha, you've been busy since last i had a look! Nice! >>> >>> One comment of the top of my head: >>> >>> - Validation: a Deployment method is not required. >>> The following is from the Getting started tutorial ( >>> http://arquillian.org/guides/getting_started/ ) : >>> >>> >>> Now, about that flair. An Arquillian test case must have three >>> things: >>> >>> 1. A @RunWith(Arquillian.class) annotation on the class >>> 2. A public static method annotated with @Deployment that returns >>> a ShrinkWrap archive >>> 3. At least one method annotated with @Test >>> >>> Snjeza >>> >>> >>> >>> -aslak- >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Could you please review https://github.com/snjeza/arquillian-eclipse >>> ? >>> Your suggestions are welcome. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Snjeza >>> > > _______________________________________________ > jbosstools-dev mailing list > jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

Hi, Could you please review https://github.com/snjeza/arquillian-eclipse? Your suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Snjeza _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

Hey Snjeza, (cc'ing Andrew since I know he got opinions on arquillian ide integration ;) cool progress, looking at the videos I got the following feedback: Add Arquillian support - http://screencast.com/t/gUh1IjTBfnE A) "Add Arquillian support" mutates/edits the project with zero warning/information - there should be a confirmation dialog informing what is about to happen that the user can approve or reject. B) A bunch of profiles are included (glassfish local, remote, as etc.) I suggest users can choose which ones they want to include to avoid cluttering their pom.xml. (maybe would be interesting to provide a way to add these profiles later on since with this they aren't included by default) C) I see you are referring to arquillian-bom in here - does this fit with projects where enterprise=true and -redhat dependencies should/would be needed for some of these ? i.e. shouldn't there be an EAP profile too ? D) Can I enable Arquillian on non-maven projects ? (i.e. users that uses mvn eclipse:eclipse or gradle or ant+ivy would not have m2e installed/enabled for their project but would still like the various features to be available) Create test case - http://screencast.com/t/mjoeU7gqkym A) shoudn't "create deployment()" be enabled by default ? B) how does this wizard work if the user is using TestNG ? Do we need it behave differently ? (if its just a matter of changing the import of junit to testng initally we could just leave it as is IMO) Create @deployment method - http://screencast.com/t/OY701ZWeXWsv A) (minor) The Add buttons should be labeled Add... (three dots) since they open additional UI B) "Add" on classes does what exactly ? show all classes on the current project and its dependencies ? resource linking - http://screencast.com/t/y8bt7See This is nice - nuff said! :) Run As ... - http://screencast.com/t/0cOI6AITkupB A) The Run As... seem to require/build a custom type of launch configuration, correct ? This kinda goes against the notion of letting arquillian be "like any other junit/testng test" It also prevents usage of this against junit, testng or any other kind of launch - i.e. if testng adds a feature to their launch this one won't work with/use it. Should/could this not just be an addon on junit/testng launches ? (i.e. extra tab which adds in the right system properties ? ) B) the "Test Failed. Connect refused: connect" is not very explanatory. Sounds like it did connect ...but not really. What does "test management" actually do ? does it use the as7 server adapters ? D) On the arquillian tab I see a table with specific servers - is it meant to be the server selected is the server used for the run ? how does this match up with the profiles ? Or is it getting the properties to set from that server ? How about other servers than jboss ? This workflow is a bit confusing to me - I would expect this to be a choice you make when launching the test, i.e. when running it I get the question which server to run with and the properties get set based on it ? (with an option of a "dont ask me again" option to make it remember the launch settings) E) Also the start/debug/stop buttons in this UI seems to be the wrong place to have these ? (since you'll never see this page in a normal flow) F) You write: "The Arquillian configuration properties are added using declarations from the arquillian.xml, arquillian.properties and the default values when instantiating the corresponding container configuration." what does this mean ? that you take properties from all these and then pass in as concrete system properties or ? Validation - http://screencast.com/t/53XkyHltg A) how are the test of missing classes done ? by looking for matching .addClasses methods in the @Deployment method ? B) the warning says "import isn't included", we should not use short form of english words so it should be "import is not included" or dependent on answer of A: "class not found referenced in any deployment" Same with "doesn't exist" referring to the resources. C) I think the severity level should be specified more out than just a global setting. i.e. "Missing resources/classes in @Deployment method", "Used classes missing in @Deployment", "Missing @Deployment method" I think this plugin already got a good set of featuers - my only biggest concern is that it seem to require its own custom launch config which I find unnecessary and the way to launch/configure it confusing. If we could get that worked out we should definitely get this included in JBT 4.x ASAP. /max On 16 Oct 2012, at 16:59, Snjezana Peco <snjezana.peco(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > Could you please review https://github.com/snjeza/arquillian-eclipse? > Your suggestions are welcome. > > Thanks, > Snjeza > _______________________________________________ jbosstools-dev mailing list jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev