We do publish tests-jars, so you can actually use DefaultServer, however I agree that this is not really ideal. I think the ideal solution would be to take the core functionality from DefaultServer and create a new repo (undertow-test-runner) and create some kind of UndertowRunner class that is based on DefaultServer. Does this sound reasonable? Stuart On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Bill O'Neil <bill(a)dartalley.com&gt; wrote: > Hello, > > How would you recommend testing custom HttpHanders? The DefaultServer class > in core part of the test code so it is not included in the jar for reuse. > Would it be reasonable to pull testing utils into their own project so it > can be reused? Or would you recommend just mocking a HttpServerExchange and > passing that to the HttpHandler? > > Thanks, > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > undertow-dev mailing list > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev

Just to follow up on this would it need a separate git repo or could it just be a new maven sub project? I don't know much about extending JUnit runners but it sounds like the DefaultServer class can be renamed to UndertowRunner and moved to a new sub project. Each other project could then add it as a test dependency and update imports accordingly. Is that all that would be required? Maybe it could be split up a bit or move more testing related utils as well. Bill On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Bill O'Neil <bill(a)dartalley.com&gt; wrote: > > Whatever you think is best. I'm fine following Steve's approach. Undertow > starts up and shuts down pretty quick. > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: >> >> We do publish tests-jars, so you can actually use DefaultServer, >> however I agree that this is not really ideal. >> >> I think the ideal solution would be to take the core functionality >> from DefaultServer and create a new repo (undertow-test-runner) and >> create some kind of UndertowRunner class that is based on >> DefaultServer. Does this sound reasonable? >> >> >> Stuart >> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Bill O'Neil <bill(a)dartalley.com&gt; wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > How would you recommend testing custom HttpHanders? The DefaultServer >> > class >> > in core part of the test code so it is not included in the jar for >> > reuse. >> > Would it be reasonable to pull testing utils into their own project so >> > it >> > can be reused? Or would you recommend just mocking a HttpServerExchange >> > and >> > passing that to the HttpHandler? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Bill >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > undertow-dev mailing list >> > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev > >