Robin,
We don't have anything right now apart from
io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler#dispatchMockRequest, so
you will have to dig in and try to write a mock yourself. Maybe I'll add
that to a future release plan but, for now, it is not on my radar either.
Flavia
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:52 PM Robin Anil <robin.anil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Undertow-dev
Could you see this request. Apologies for pinging Stuart directly. But I
am looking for ways to write tests that exercise the undertow handler
chain tests going through the network.
Robin
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:11 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Not in the near future. I have mostly been working on Quarkus for the
> moment, and Flavia has taken over as Undertow lead (I am still involved in
> the project, I just don't have as much time to spend on it).
>
> Stuart
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:02 AM Robin Anil <robin.anil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stuart, just checking in again, is doing a local invocation of handlers
>> without involving network on your radar?
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM Robin Anil <robin.anil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not a lot of data. But most of our handlers are very fast and out test
>>> suite is in the 2000 range and increasing
>>>
>>> - from a phone, xquz typoz
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2018 4:35 PM, "Stuart Douglas"
<sdouglas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> For servlet there
>>> is io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler#dispatchMockRequest,
>>> however it is Servlet only at the moment and it pretty basic.
>>>
>>> That said though I am currently looking at adding support for a new
>>> client+proxy implementation, and one of the things I want to support is
>>> local invocation without involving the network, so doing a more general
>>> version of this was on my radar.
>>>
>>> I am still surprised that the network is causing issues for your
>>> integration tests though. How much data are these tests sending?
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Robin Anil <robin.anil(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stuart,
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to bring up undertow programmatically where the
>>>> underlying HTTP/https transport is removed in favor or direction
function
>>>> calls
>>>>
>>>> Effectively, we have accumulated a lot of integration tests and are
>>>> looking for ways to speed them up and at the moment, 80% of CPU time in
the
>>>> test is pretty data copies back and forth at the HTTP client and HTTP
>>>> server.
>>>>
>>>> Before I start refactoring our HTTP-handler chains to fake-undertow, I
>>>> thought it might be good to ask.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [image: Tock]
>> <
https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
>>
>> Robin Anil
>> Director of Engineering
>>
>> Tock /
exploretock.com
>> <
https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
>>
>
--
[image: Tock]
<
https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
Robin Anil
Director of Engineering
Tock /
exploretock.com
<
https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED <