[jbossws-dev] JBossWS testsuite reorganization

Fri Jun 13 15:21:20 EDT 2014

> Folks,
> with current development on jbossws trunk aimed at version 5, I believe
> it's time consider rethinking the testsuite a bit.
> 
> Current status
> --------------------
> Historically, we've been running the integration tests against a JBoss
> AS container that has to be started before the testsuite. The target
> container is a vanilla distribution that suits with most of the tests,
> except for few ones requiring a https connector or a specific security
> domain to be available. Implementations of the
> org.jboss.wsf.spi.deployer.Deployer interface are available for each
> target container and allow deploying test archives as well as setting
> security domains / https connector by internally relying on the
> container management API.
> Different maven profiles trigger different implementations of Deployer
> (due to different artifact dependencies / classpath), allowing running
> the testsuite the same way against different target containers. When it
> comes to continuous integration, the idea is that a QA job first updates
> a target container with the current jbossws libraries, then it starts
> the container and runs the jbossws testsuite against it.
> 
> Issues / reasons for changing
> ---------------------------------------
> The current approach is working pretty much fine, but suffers from some
> limitations:
> * it needs a container to be already running when the integration test
> is triggered; it would be great if we could have the container started /
> stopped by the test itself

ARQ solves that. I think ARQ starts application server per module for multi-module maven based TS and per surefire execution.

> * we're limited to running the testsuite against a predefined container
> profile (standalone.xml, standalone-full.xml ): while most of the tests
> makes sense when run against standalone.xml profile (because the
> webservices subsystem is on in it), we have some tests requiring
> subsystems available on different profiles (for instance, the messaging
> subsystem which is in standalone-full.xml or the xts subsystem which is
> in standalone-xts.xml).

You would still need modules or executions with different arquillian.xml

> Currently we run the testsuite in Spring mode
> against standalone-full.xml, basically because till CXF 2.7.x the
> SOAP-over-JMS implementation has been available with Spring only. That's
> not the case anymore, on CXF 3.0.0, so we'd likely have to test it in
> both spring and non-spring mode, but that needs the messaging subsystem
> which is not in standalone.xml

This case is great for 2 executions, but you will need to differentiate xml result file names -- but it's already solved for surefire -- http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-750

> * we have few tests (but might have more in future) that actually
> require further additional changes to the server; that includes adding
> users, messaging queues, setting server side system properties at boot,
> ... The only way to achieve that atm is to have the QA job run a CLI
> script to modify the server or set a system property on command line
> when starting the server jvm

ARQ helps here, you will have to switch default start/stop behavior to apply on every TestCase

> * we have tests affecting the server management model, for instance
> changing the way the webservices subsystem model rewrites wsdl
> soap:address attributes; that makes it impossible to run those tests at
> the same time of any other tests

I thing this still applies even with ARQ usage - server is running all the time, it's not started for every test.
So such tests should be isolated in separate execution or submodule and parallel test execution disabled.

* BOM file

I would like to see definition of versions in BOM file and not in parent.
This could help me a lot to run JBossWS TS with productized bits.
Now we have to prepare patches for JBossWS codebase to have productized bits on client side too.

* ARQ direct usage

Still confused about dropping/not dropping old way and moving fully to ARQ.
Have feeling that this proposal is on the half way to the full usage of ARQ.
I think it's quite safe approach, you still have fallback plan.

* integration tests using surefire or failsafe

Wouldn't be failsafe more appropriate for integration tests ?
  http://maven.apache.org/surefire/maven-failsafe-plugin/
  The Failsafe Plugin is designed to run integration tests while the Surefire Plugins is designed to run unit tests. 

> Proposals / idea
> ---------------------
> I'm listening to proposals to revisit the way the testsuite is run and
> better address the point above.
> Something I've been thinking about is relying on Arquillian, similarly
> to what the WFLY testsuite does. What's not trivial is the fact that we
> still need to have different version of the Arquillian SPI
> implementation (that is, different WFLY / EAP versions) used depending

+1

> on a maven profile specified when running the testsuite; moreover we
> also need to be able to run against the result of building the latest
> WFLY master (iow, not a released target for which a
> wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz is available on the repository). 

So first build latest WF to have latest wildfly-arquillian-container-xyz ? 

> We could have custom server profile files (standalone-abc.xml) in the
> jbossws sources for the supported containers to be used for starting
> specific versions of the containers through Arquillian. The integration

Different "configurations" will be definitely necessary (meaning arquillian.xml files), some things can be provided by parameters, but not sure if everything would be configurable this way.
About standalone-abc.xml files - why would you have them ? Maintaining them isn't fun. I hope everything could be configurable using ARQ from default profiles/configurations, no custom confing files.

> tests could be split into groups meant to run against the various
> different profiles of the selected target container. Pretty much
> anything we need to customize on the server that can't be done using the
> Deployer approach can actually be done through a proper profile file (I
> would still keep the Deployer approach when working to limit the number
> of profile files to maintain, as there's a lot of stuff in there).

Meaning to let ARQ to start WF/EAP with standalone.xml and execute current tests with prepared test libs?
  ==> in the beginning you won't need to rewrite test archives using ShrinkWrap ?

> Actually, we could even think about having a prepare phase before the
> actual testsuite that runs given CLI scripts to obtain the desired
> profile configuration.

I would rather avoid custom standalone-abc.xml files.

Cheers.
Rostislav

> Next steps
> ---------------
> Please provide feedback / ideas. Then we need a plan and eventually
> jiras created.
> 
> Cheers
> Alessio
> 
> --
> Alessio Soldano
> Web Service Lead, JBoss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jbossws-dev mailing list
> jbossws-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossws-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 