5:45 a.m.
Although after my e-mail I hear from Josef they do want to duplicate all ;-)
From my perspective I think we want to ensure the security tests are
clearly split in some way so we can identify legacy tests and Elytron
tests independently.
When it comes to code review the legacy tests are much more about
backwards compatibility so any changes to those should be given greater
scrutiny.
Secondly we should hit a point where we can remove the old tests so
separation will make that easier.
A package split would be fine but maybe a project split would make it
easier to define which tests are run and when.
Instead maybe we could split it into three: -
basic, basic-legacy-security, basic-security
The two 'security' projects would be the different form of security
testing, maybe the 'basic' project could have an optional profile to
switch it to a 100% legacy config mode.
On 02/12/16 11:37, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
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@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>