Re: [wildfly-dev] Elytron integration tests in WildFly testsuite

On 2 Dec 2016 11:00 PM, "Josef Cacek" <jcacek(a)redhat.com <mailto:jcacek@redhat.com>> wrote: > > We prefer duplication of all tests in the testsuite to keep test coverage. > > To be sure we don't have regressions with introducing Elytron and at the same time we are able to cover current features with Elytron, we must run all tests with both security subsystems. > Even if a test is not security related on the first glance, the tested component may use a security feature internally. By switching to the new security subsystem the feature may stop work. > I think this is massive overkill, and would severely reduce the quality and usability of the testsuite (more tests != a better test suite, they need to be useful test otherwise they just add technical debt for no gain). I just did a quick search through the code base, and as far as I can tell there is maybe ~50 test cases that test security related functionality (i.e. use the SecurityDomainSetup functionality), out of ~950 test cases, so this would amount to adding around 900 useless test cases. The argument that Elytron may cause regressions in these cases does really work either, because these tests are not linked to a security domain Elytron should never actually be activated, and even if this was a concern the correct approach would be to write some smoke tests to ensure that non Elytron deployments still work correctly. The expediency argument also does not really work, as the tests that actually use security will need to be modified anyway so they use Elytron instead of the old security subsystem, so if the whole test suite was copied the only tests that worked 'out of the box' would be the tests that don't actually test anything security related. IMHO a better way to test this would be to move all security related tests into their own module, and then create subclasses of these tests in Elytron and legacy modules. Elytron should be added to the default config, so that even non security related tests run with Elytron present (although we should still have at least one test module that runs without it, just as a smoke test to make sure that legacy configs without it will still work). Stuart > Let's keep the current (legacy security based) tests alive until the legacy security subsystem is fully removed. > Then we'll simply remove the *-legacy-security testsuite modules. > > -- Josef > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tomaž Cerar" <tomaz.cerar(a)gmail.com <mailto:tomaz.cerar@gmail.com>> > > To: "Darran Lofthouse" <darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com <mailto:darran.lofthouse@jboss.com>> > > Cc: wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 12:37:22 PM > > Subject: Re: [wildfly-dev] Elytron integration tests in WildFly testsuite > > > > That is probably fine, but! it should be done differently. > > > > instead of duplicating whole testsuite (and adding extra hour to execution > > and extra headaches with intermittent problems and duplication of > > maintenance) > > I would suggest that all security related tests get extracted to new > > "security" testsuite module and than only that part is duplicated. > > > > This way we will have all security related stuff in one place. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Darran Lofthouse < > > darran.lofthouse(a)jboss.com <mailto:darran.lofthouse@jboss.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Probably should add - any duplication should only be for security tests > > - not everything else in there! > > > > On 02/12/16 11:08, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > > > On 02/12/16 11:03, Tomaž Cerar wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Josef Cacek < jcacek(a)redhat.com <mailto:jcacek@redhat.com> > > >> <mailto: jcacek(a)redhat.com <mailto:jcacek@redhat.com> >> wrote: > > >> > > >> The modules would just live side by side - basic would use Elytron > > >> configuration, basic-legacy-security would use configuration similar > > >> to (or same as) the current server configuration. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> What would this actually mean? > > >> we will have two copies basic tests suites one running with elytron > > >> another with legacy security subsystem? > > >> > > >> Do I read that right? Please say I am not. > > > > > > That is correct - we have two security implementations they both need > > > testing. > > > > > > One needs testing for backwards compatibility and regressions, the other > > > for equivalent behaviour and then new features and bugs. > > > > > > Needing to test both was discussed previously so this is more about how > > > to separate both and also give the Elytron testing a good foundation to > > > start from. > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> wildfly-dev mailing list > > >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev> > > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wildfly-dev mailing list > > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wildfly-dev mailing list > > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev> > > _______________________________________________ > wildfly-dev mailing list > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev> _______________________________________________ wildfly-dev mailing list wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev