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&gt; 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&gt; > 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&gt; 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&gt; >>> 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&gt; 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&gt; >>>> 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 -- Flavia Rainone Principal Software Engineer Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED <https://redhat.com/trusted>