2:21 p.m.
Folks,
with current development on jbossws trunk aimed at version 5, I believe
it's time consider rethinking the testsuite a bit.
Current status
--------------------
Historically, we've been running the integration tests against a JBoss
AS container that has to be started before the testsuite. The target
container is a vanilla distribution that suits with most of the tests,
except for few ones requiring a https connector or a specific security
domain to be available. Implementations of the
org.jboss.wsf.spi.deployer.Deployer interface are available for each
target container and allow deploying test archives as well as setting
security domains / https connector by internally relying on the
container management API.
Different maven profiles trigger different implementations of Deployer
(due to different artifact dependencies / classpath), allowing running
the testsuite the same way against different target containers. When it
comes to continuous integration, the idea is that a QA job first updates
a target container with the current jbossws libraries, then it starts
the container and runs the jbossws testsuite against it.
Issues / reasons for changing
---------------------------------------
The current approach is working pretty much fine, but suffers from some
limitations:
* it needs a container to be already running when the integration test
is triggered; it would be great if we could have the container started /
stopped by the test itself
ARQ solves that. I think ARQ starts application server per module for multi-module maven
based TS and per surefire execution.
* we're limited to running the testsuite against a predefined
container
profile (standalone.xml, standalone-full.xml ): while most of the tests
makes sense when run against standalone.xml profile (because the
webservices subsystem is on in it), we have some tests requiring
subsystems available on different profiles (for instance, the messaging
subsystem which is in standalone-full.xml or the xts subsystem which is
in standalone-xts.xml).
You would still need modules or executions with different arquillian.xml
Currently we run the testsuite in Spring mode
against standalone-full.xml, basically because till CXF 2.7.x the
SOAP-over-JMS implementation has been available with Spring only. That's
not the case anymore, on CXF 3.0.0, so we'd likely have to test it in
both spring and non-spring mode, but that needs the messaging subsystem
which is not in standalone.xml
This case is great for 2 executions, but you will need to differentiate xml result file
names -- but it's already solved for surefire --
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-750
* we have few tests (but might have more in future) that actually
require further additional changes to the server; that includes adding
users, messaging queues, setting server side system properties at boot,
... The only way to achieve that atm is to have the QA job run a CLI
script to modify the server or set a system property on command line
when starting the server jvm
ARQ helps here, you will have to switch default start/stop behavior to apply on every
TestCase
* we have tests affecting the server management model, for instance
changing the way the webservices subsystem model rewrites wsdl
soap:address attributes; that makes it impossible to run those tests at
the same time of any other tests
I thing this still applies even with ARQ usage - server is running all the time, it's
not started for every test.
So such tests should be isolated in separate execution or submodule and parallel test
execution disabled.
* BOM file
I would like to see definition of versions in BOM file and not in parent.
This could help me a lot to run JBossWS TS with productized bits.
Now we have to prepare patches for JBossWS codebase to have productized bits on client
side too.
* ARQ direct usage
Still confused about dropping/not dropping old way and moving fully to ARQ.
Have feeling that this proposal is on the half way to the full usage of ARQ.
I think it's quite safe approach, you still have fallback plan.
* integration tests using surefire or failsafe
Wouldn't be failsafe more appropriate for integration tests ?
http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/
The Failsafe Plugin is designed to run integration tests while the Surefire Plugins is
designed to run unit tests.
Proposals / idea
---------------------
I'm listening to proposals to revisit the way the testsuite is run and
better address the point above.
Something I've been thinking about is relying on Arquillian, similarly
to what the WFLY testsuite does. What's not trivial is the fact that we
still need to have different version of the Arquillian SPI
implementation (that is, different WFLY / EAP versions) used depending
+1
on a maven profile specified when running the testsuite; moreover we
also need to be able to run against the result of building the latest
WFLY master (iow, not a released target for which a
wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz is available on the repository).
So first build latest WF to have latest wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz ?
We could have custom server profile files (standalone-abc.xml) in
the
jbossws sources for the supported containers to be used for starting
specific versions of the containers through Arquillian. The integration
Different "configurations" will be definitely necessary (meaning arquillian.xml
files), some things can be provided by parameters, but not sure if everything would be
configurable this way.
About standalone-abc.xml files - why would you have them ? Maintaining them isn't fun.
I hope everything could be configurable using ARQ from default profiles/configurations, no
custom confing files.
tests could be split into groups meant to run against the various
different profiles of the selected target container. Pretty much
anything we need to customize on the server that can't be done using the
Deployer approach can actually be done through a proper profile file (I
would still keep the Deployer approach when working to limit the number
of profile files to maintain, as there's a lot of stuff in there).
Meaning to let ARQ to start WF/EAP with standalone.xml and execute current tests with
prepared test libs?
==> in the beginning you won't need to rewrite test archives using ShrinkWrap ?
Actually, we could even think about having a prepare phase before
the
actual testsuite that runs given CLI scripts to obtain the desired
profile configuration.
I would rather avoid custom standalone-abc.xml files.
Cheers.
Rostislav
Next steps
---------------
Please provide feedback / ideas. Then we need a plan and eventually
jiras created.
Cheers
Alessio
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
_______________________________________________
jbossws-dev mailing list
jbossws-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossws-dev
6:28 a.m.
New subject: JBossWS testsuite reorganization
Hi Rostislav,
On 13/06/14 21:21, Rostislav Svoboda wrote:
> * we have few tests (but might have more in future) that
actually
> require further additional changes to the server; that includes adding
> users, messaging queues, setting server side system properties at boot,
> ... The only way to achieve that atm is to have the QA job run a CLI
> script to modify the server or set a system property on command line
> when starting the server jvm
ARQ helps here, you will have to switch default start/stop behavior to apply on every
TestCase
> * we have tests affecting the server management model, for instance
> changing the way the webservices subsystem model rewrites wsdl
> soap:address attributes; that makes it impossible to run those tests at
> the same time of any other tests
I thing this still applies even with ARQ usage - server is running all the time, it's
not started for every test.
So such tests should be isolated in separate execution or submodule and parallel test
execution disabled.
Basically, I'm thinking about solving this the same as for
the previous
item (start a container for each of these tests and stop it when the
test is over).
* BOM file
I would like to see definition of versions in BOM file and not in parent.
This could help me a lot to run JBossWS TS with productized bits.
Now we have to prepare patches for JBossWS codebase to have productized bits on client
side too.
OK, this is however an independent task (a general project
build/structure change), isn't it?
* ARQ direct usage
Still confused about dropping/not dropping old way and moving fully to ARQ.
Have feeling that this proposal is on the half way to the full usage of ARQ.
I think it's quite safe approach, you still have fallback plan.
Not sure what
you mean here above; in any case, the move to use ARQ is
still something being evaluated, not set in stone (yet).
* integration tests using surefire or failsafe
Wouldn't be failsafe more appropriate for integration tests ?
http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/
The Failsafe Plugin is designed to run integration tests while the Surefire Plugins is
designed to run unit tests.
Possibly yes; to be honest, though, given we don't
run anything after
the integration-test phase atm, there would be no change. But you're
right, failsafe is probably more appropriate.
> on a maven profile specified when running the testsuite; moreover we
> also need to be able to run against the result of building the latest
> WFLY master (iow, not a released target for which a
> wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz is available on the repository).
So first build latest WF to have latest wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz ?
Right, I
didn't notice those artifacts actually come the WFLY build. So
no problem here.
> We could have custom server profile files (standalone-abc.xml) in
the
> jbossws sources for the supported containers to be used for starting
> specific versions of the containers through Arquillian. The integration
Different "configurations" will be definitely necessary (meaning arquillian.xml
files), some things can be provided by parameters, but not sure if everything would be
configurable this way.
About standalone-abc.xml files - why would you have them ? Maintaining them isn't
fun. I hope everything could be configurable using ARQ from default
profiles/configurations, no custom confing files.
I share your concern; that's
why I said I'd probably try something like
a preliminary phase in which an existing server config file is copied,
the server started, some cli commands sent to modify the config, the
server stopped and eventually the server config referenced and used by
arquillian. Maintaining standalone-abc.xml files should be the last option.
> tests could be split into groups meant to run against the various
> different profiles of the selected target container. Pretty much
> anything we need to customize on the server that can't be done using the
> Deployer approach can actually be done through a proper profile file (I
> would still keep the Deployer approach when working to limit the number
> of profile files to maintain, as there's a lot of stuff in there).
Meaning to let ARQ to start WF/EAP with standalone.xml and execute current tests with
prepared test libs?
==> in the beginning you won't need to rewrite test archives using ShrinkWrap ?
I was actually still reasoning on the stanalone-abc.xml thing above.
However, the migration to SW is something we wanted to do anyway
(there's a jra for it). What you propose could be a interesting idea,
the migration of ~600 tests to SW is not going to be a few hours tasks ;-)
Thanks
Alessio
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
2:28 a.m.
New subject: JBossWS testsuite reorganization
Hi Alessio,
Hi Rostislav,
On 13/06/14 21:21, Rostislav Svoboda wrote:
>> * we have few tests (but might have more in future) that actually
>> require further additional changes to the server; that includes adding
>> users, messaging queues, setting server side system properties at boot,
>> ... The only way to achieve that atm is to have the QA job run a CLI
>> script to modify the server or set a system property on command line
>> when starting the server jvm
> ARQ helps here, you will have to switch default start/stop behavior to
> apply on every TestCase
>
>> * we have tests affecting the server management model, for instance
>> changing the way the webservices subsystem model rewrites wsdl
>> soap:address attributes; that makes it impossible to run those tests at
>> the same time of any other tests
> I thing this still applies even with ARQ usage - server is running all the
> time, it's not started for every test.
> So such tests should be isolated in separate execution or submodule and
> parallel test execution disabled.
Basically, I'm thinking about solving this the same as for the previous
item (start a container for each of these tests and stop it when the
test is over).
Ok
> * BOM file
>
> I would like to see definition of versions in BOM file and not in parent.
> This could help me a lot to run JBossWS TS with productized bits.
> Now we have to prepare patches for JBossWS codebase to have productized
> bits on client side too.
OK, this is however an independent task (a general project
build/structure change), isn't it?
For me it's 50/50 :) I think it's related to testsuite too.
It could be possible to quickly change client/testuite configuration to run on upstream or
productized bits for example.
> * ARQ direct usage
>
> Still confused about dropping/not dropping old way and moving fully to ARQ.
> Have feeling that this proposal is on the half way to the full usage of
> ARQ.
> I think it's quite safe approach, you still have fallback plan.
Not sure what you mean here above; in any case, the move to use ARQ is
still something being evaluated, not set in stone (yet).
Ok
> * integration tests using surefire or failsafe
>
> Wouldn't be failsafe more appropriate for integration tests ?
> http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/
> The Failsafe Plugin is designed to run integration tests while the
> Surefire Plugins is designed to run unit tests.
Possibly yes; to be honest, though, given we don't run anything after
the integration-test phase atm, there would be no change. But you're
right, failsafe is probably more appropriate.
+1
>
>> on a maven profile specified when running the testsuite; moreover we
>> also need to be able to run against the result of building the latest
>> WFLY master (iow, not a released target for which a
>> wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz is available on the repository).
> So first build latest WF to have latest wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz ?
Right, I didn't notice those artifacts actually come the WFLY build. So
no problem here.
+1
>> We could have custom server profile files (standalone-abc.xml) in the
>> jbossws sources for the supported containers to be used for starting
>> specific versions of the containers through Arquillian. The integration
> Different "configurations" will be definitely necessary (meaning
> arquillian.xml files), some things can be provided by parameters, but not
> sure if everything would be configurable this way.
> About standalone-abc.xml files - why would you have them ? Maintaining them
> isn't fun. I hope everything could be configurable using ARQ from default
> profiles/configurations, no custom confing files.
I share your concern; that's why I said I'd probably try something like
a preliminary phase in which an existing server config file is copied,
the server started, some cli commands sent to modify the config, the
server stopped and eventually the server config referenced and used by
arquillian. Maintaining standalone-abc.xml files should be the last option.
again +1 :)
>
>> tests could be split into groups meant to run against the various
>> different profiles of the selected target container. Pretty much
>> anything we need to customize on the server that can't be done using the
>> Deployer approach can actually be done through a proper profile file (I
>> would still keep the Deployer approach when working to limit the number
>> of profile files to maintain, as there's a lot of stuff in there).
> Meaning to let ARQ to start WF/EAP with standalone.xml and execute current
> tests with prepared test libs?
> ==> in the beginning you won't need to rewrite test archives using
> ShrinkWrap ?
I was actually still reasoning on the stanalone-abc.xml thing above.
However, the migration to SW is something we wanted to do anyway
(there's a jra for it). What you propose could be a interesting idea,
the migration of ~600 tests to SW is not going to be a few hours tasks ;-)
Thanks
Alessio
Reorganization plan is more clear to now. Thanks for sharing details.
Cheers.
Rostislav
--
Alessio Soldano
Web Service Lead, JBoss
3850
days inactive
3863
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Alessio Soldano -
Rostislav Svoboda