[jbosstools-dev] Integration tests on coretests update site?

[Nick Boldt]

I'm good either way; depends on what works best for the various 
stakeholders... dev, QE, GSS, PM, etc.

Would 1 site w/ both SOA/BRMS (Integration Stack) and non-SOA/BRMS 
(Core) tests make more sense than having one for each?

On 11/20/2012 05:09 PM, Leonard Dimaggio wrote:
> The division of the tests into 2 sites sounds OK - but in the JIRA it sounds like you are recommending one 1 site?
>
> --Len
>
>
> (Sent from my iPhone)
>
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Nick Boldt <nboldt at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for publishing i-tests to 1 or 2 sites:
>>
>> * 1 for JBT/JBDS Core tests (and upstream non-bot tests, if needed, plus
>> framework plugins)
>>
>> * 1 for JBT/JBDS SOA/BRMS ("Integration Stack") tests (and upstream
>> non-bot tests, if needed, plus framework plugins)
>>
>> Can we continue the conversation in
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-12974, if anything more than +1s
>> are needed?
>>
>> N
>>
>> On 11/20/2012 11:16 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> This beckon to question why bot ext was ever moved in the first place ?
>>>>>> We wanted to have ability to change our tests after code freeze because
>>>>>> we have to fix tests once new version of JBT/JBDS is available for QE.
>>>>> the base library for doing tests aren't part of that - that should just affect the main test code, right?
>>>> Unfortunately sometimes we are fixing also bot ext part when new
>>>> JBDS/JBT build is available for QE
>>>
>>> thats a shame :(
>>>
>>>>>>> And why bot tests that requires SOA tests was put together into the same repository. It has its upsides but not sure it is the best way since these plugins life cycle are very different.
>>>>>> I think to have SOA tests separated in different repo would be good. I
>>>>>> don't know why it was put to the same repo as "core" integration tests.
>>>>> We cant run a git migraiton on the integration-tests repo to split it up. Your call.
>>>> OK. We will think about it.
>>>
>>> sorry - that should say "We *can* run git migration scripts".
>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, right now the reason is mostly running the tests on Machydra. But not exclusively - even if we (or anyone else) wants to run a test localy we have to build bot ext first. Having it on the coretests site would solve this.
>>>>>>>> Also, I have some jobs for the EAP QA team set up on the main jboss jenkins instance and it works the same way - unless bot ext is on the coretests site it needs to be build first. I'm not saying that it is such a big problem but I think it would make sense to have this in the coretests site if possible.
>>>>>>> If it needs to be in coretets why is the code moved to integration tests ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't this just about integreation-tests needing to have its own updatesite ? (which we can get easier once reddeer dependency variance is solved ?)
>>>>>> To have separate update site for integration-tests would be good. I was
>>>>>> just thinking that it would be easier to add integration-tests to
>>>>>> existing coretests update site that it will need less work than creating
>>>>>> new update site and changing our builds to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> which builds - you guys have your own root parent pom now you can add additional site to afaik. You already did it for reddeer, doing that is not bad in itself, bad was that it was/is? pointing
>>>>> to an updatesite not mirrored/maintained/etc.
>>>> I meant builds on machydra running all ours bot tests. We QE have to
>>>> discuss abut creating update site for integration tests. Once we decide
>>>> if we gonna do it I will inform you.
>>>
>>> What I'm suggesting is that the integration-tests gets published to 1 or 2 updatesites under download.jboss.org just like the other builds - but it kinda requires the git repository we built has a consistent set of dependencies IMO.
>>>
>>> /max
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>
>> --
>> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
>> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
>> http://nick.divbyzero.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

-- 
Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
http://nick.divbyzero.com