On 06/02/2016 05:50 PM, Rostislav
I think we can put the tests under Arquillian folder in less maven
modules. Then bunch of tests can spin faster with one wildfly
instance instead of start wildfly for each. This could the
Principal JBoss QA Engineer
On 06/01/2016 05:20 PM, Alessio
Il 01/06/2016 20:16, Ron Sigal
Right, that's what I meant saying that it depends on how you
implement the solution. In practice, we might end up needing
more than just a single WFLY instance (perhaps because we
need different container configurations for different types
of tests), but the number of instances should really be
limited (let's say less than 5?).
ARQ + Undertow know each other: http://arquillian.org/modules/undertow-embedded-container-adapter/
My first inclination, like Weinan's, was to think that
running everything in Wildfly was pretty heavy, but if we
just start Wildfly once, that's not so bad.
After all, that's what the TCK does, as well as the new qe
And the JBossWS testsuite ;)
One problem I still have is that, when I'm working on a
problem, I MUCH prefer running tests in an embedded
container like tjws or Undertow.
Not sure what the preference is based on, but if that's
because you don't want to manually start the container,
etc... Arquillian does that for you.
I just like the instantaneous startup. For example, I just ran
a test in RESTEASY-TEST-WF8, and it took 2.7 seconds to start
up Wildfly and another 2.7 seconds to create and deploy the
WAR. Better than AS 5 ;-) but still a little annoying.
If you do TS properly you need to start WF just once so I
don't see this as a problem.
Starting WF for each test is bad practice.
the another thing for test and build improvement.
I am also +1 for use arquillian to adapt containers. Besides easy
to switch test container , one more good thing we can get from
Arquillian or ShrinkWrap is we don't have to create a test resource
file like web.xml in different place. Write all things in one test
looks very clean and easy to maintain.