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

Fri Aug 12 07:05:50 EDT 2011

> On 12 Aug 2011, at 04:28, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 12/08/2011, at 9:06 AM, Andrew Lee Rubinger wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > I am ok with splitting the tests up in this manner, but I think we
> > will need additional test suite modules for purely technical
> > reasons.
> >
> > For instance, at the moment we also have compat for hibernate 3
> > testing, and timer service, to test the ejb timer service.
> >
> > Compat is needed because maven cannot handle having multiple
> > hibernate versions in the same module, and timer service
> > is separate because it needs the preview configuration, and need to
> > run multiple times in order to test restoring persistent timers.

Another example for new module should be tests on several AS7 instances - for some cases you would need 2, 4 and more instances, sometimes you will need to shutdown/kill AS7 instance (failover, replication tests).
How would be AS7 instances managed in this proposal? It seems that everybody is interested only to run one instance of standalone server and run tests against it. 

What about 'Clustering tests on multiple AS7 instances proposal' by Karel Piwko (http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-as7-dev/2011-August/003434.html) ? Clustering tests are not mentioned in this proposal. 

And what about tests for management APIs? Should they be placed in api module? Management APIs are not extension to "spec".

Andrew wants to use profiles to specify parameters for tests and maven plugins + to select tests which should be executed.
In QA we would like to execute all tests with one command (mvn test) and I think that wouldn't be easily possible with this approach.
I can imagine array of parameters, Maven is called in cycles with different parameters. This is complicated to maintain - you must cover all combinations + when new profile is added all test jobs should be reconfigured to use new configurations. And you must be sure that test results are not overwritten with new run. We need to run testsuite on RHEL/Solaris/Windows, one command to execute all tests is necessary.

> >>
> >>> - 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
> >
> > I am very much opposed to this split. IMHO splitting the test
> > classes into two different places makes it much harder to read and
> > write tests.
> >
> > I also don't see how having additional test scoped dependencies on
> > the class path is a problem, as in practice this works out to being
> > Arquillian and JUnit.
> 
> I agree here, I don't like having tests split up over two source
> folders

+1

Rosta

> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >>
> >>> - 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> jboss-as7-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev