[jboss-as7-dev] Revisited: Integration TestSuite Organization and Maintenance

[Andrew Lee Rubinger]

Inline.

On 08/11/2011 05:12 PM, Richard Achmatowicz wrote:
> Andrew
>
> Can you give a simple, concrete example of a spec test case (citing part
> of the J2EE spec, say), which illustrates:

Hehe, my PoC is filled with 'em. :)  But keep in mind we're not directly 
necessarily citing the EE specs, because we're *not* building a TCK in AS7.

> - what dependencies you want to be on the classpath, as well as those
> you don't want to be only the classpath

For this discussion, I'm primarily concerned with the *compilation* 
ClassPath, as this is the view users see when building their 
applications.  It's about explicitly defining what the AS7 API is.  So 
the deps for the compilation ClassPath should be as they are in by 
AS7-999 branch and as described in the last email:

* spec - Java SE and Java EE
* api - JBoss-specific extensions to "spec" which comprise our AS7 API
* internals - Anything in the AS7 runtime

> - what sample artifacts you would put in src/main and what you would put
> in src/test

* src/main - Stuff that is part of the deployment.  Anything that you'd 
be including in the @Deployment archive defined by an Arquillian-based 
test case.
* src/test - The test infrastructure itself, like the JUnit test and 
other util/helpers

> - what compile and test execution time constraints you would want to enforce
> This would help me to see the motivation for the refactoring and your
> planned organization of artifacts in src/main and src/test, which
> differ from the standard organization of putting all test related
> artifacts in src/test.

Test execution time is an orthogonal concern, and relates instead back 
to using "smoke" tests to run by default instead of the entire AS7 
integration test suite (which won't scale to run on every build over 
time).  IMO it's already taking too long for standard builds.

Again, the motivation for moving/organizing in this fashion is to honor 
dependencies and assert that the APIs we export ("api" and "spec-api" 
modules) are complete.  For instance, while moving tests around I 
discovered that our POMs were incompete:

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-1489
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-1493
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-1479
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-1478

> Also, is it not possible to control what is on the classpath by maven
> elements like<classpathDependencyExcludes/>  and the like?

That's for test runtime.  Because Arquillian is starting (or connecting 
to) the container in a remote process, we're less concerned with the 
client runtime ClassPath, so long as it's enough for Arquillian to do 
its thing.

S,
ALR

>
> Richard
>
> On 08/11/2011 07:38 AM, Andrew Lee Rubinger wrote:
>> Hi guys:
>>
>> I'd like to reopen the discussion regarding the testsuite organization
>> and its ongoing maintenance.  This issue dates back a few months with
>> some debates and differing opinions, so I'll do my best to outline the
>> guiding principles I'd like to see put in place concisely.
>>
>> To start off, I've a Proof-of-Concept for many of the following points
>> now located:
>>
>> https://github.com/ALRubinger/jboss-as/tree/AS7-999
>>
>> The relevant JIRA I've been using to track things:
>>
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-999
>>
>> So:
>>
>> 1) TestSuite Organization
>>
>> I believe we need a single top-level categorization by which we may
>> organize integration tests which are deployment-based and run within the
>> context of the server.  Because we use Maven modules (which are bound to
>> a dependency structure), it makes sense to file these modules by the
>> compile-time dependencies they require.  So in place I've put:
>>
>> testsuite/spec - Java SE and Java EE APIs only
>> testsuite/api - AS7 APIs + Spec
>> testsuite/internals - Use anything in the AS7 runtime in your
>> deployments; not guaranteed to be back-compat across releases
>>
>> The primary motivation here is to ensure that the dependencies we export
>> (ie. "spec-api", and "api" modules) are complete enough for users to
>> create their own deployments.  In this setup, we act as *users* of our
>> own APIs, and everything in src/main is limited to the relevant
>> dependencies.
>>
>> I know the source of some disagreements earlier centered around placing
>> the tests right next to the deployments, and some folks consider the
>> deployments as part of the test itself.  That's not a bad argument at
>> all, but again consider that we then lose the ability to validate our
>> tests in the context of our exported APIs.
>>
>> 2) Run Modes, Test Subsets
>>
>> Because the primary organizational criteria proposed in 1) is by
>> dependency, these modules will grow large over time.  The AS build over
>> time will take longer and longer to run.  Additionally, there are
>> runtime options to consider when starting tests.  So consider the
>> following requirements:
>>
>>      * Running the testsuite in IPv6
>>      * Running only a subset of tests as part of the main build
>>
>> These lend themselves well to using build profiles.  By default, I think
>> the "smoke tests" should simply be a set of tests we deem important or
>> indicative of the general health of AS7 with respect to each subsystem.
>>     As it stands now, "smoke" is its own module with a bunch of
>> Embedded-based tests, and I think these should move to the
>> organizational structure in 1) and instead we can apply some filtering
>> to make the "smoke" some default set of includes.
>>
>> 3) An authoritative maintainer
>>
>> I'd like to treat the Arquillian and TestSuite modules as true
>> subsystems of the Application Server, and as such we'll need someone to
>> assume the responsibility to review incoming commits/pull requests and
>> ensure they fit the criteria for acceptance.  Simple things like
>> consistent package names, using ARQ correctly, and not leaking
>> dependencies are very important.
>>
>> So assuming we come to agreement on these points, I'd like to request
>> push access to the AS7 repo to field testsuite and ARQ-related pull
>> requests.
>>
>> ...there's much more to discuss (I've more issues to raise alongside the
>> upcoming EAP requirements), but let's start with those first 3 major
>> points and my POC, and run from there.
>>
>> S,
>> ALR
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev