[seam-dev] Arquillian Testsuite structure for Modules

Sat Aug 20 19:20:13 EDT 2011

I'm just experimenting with this configuration now in Solder, however 
I'm getting the following exception when I run the tests - anyone seen 
this before?

Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.244 
sec <<< FAILURE!
initializationError(org.jboss.seam.solder.test.resourceLoader.ResourceLoaderTest)  
Time elapsed: 0.004 sec <<< ERROR!
java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/jboss/shrinkwrap/descriptor/api/Node
     at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0(Native Method)
     at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors(Class.java:2389)
     at java.lang.Class.getConstructor0(Class.java:2699)
     at java.lang.Class.getConstructor(Class.java:1657)
     at 
org.jboss.shrinkwrap.descriptor.impl.base.DescriptorImporterBase.from(DescriptorImporterBase.java:145)
     at 
org.jboss.arquillian.impl.bootstrap.ConfigurationRegistrar.loadConfiguration(ConfigurationRegistrar.java:50)

On 21/08/11 09:18, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> I am willing to convert seam JCR to this to see how it runs.
>
> John
>
> On Aug 20, 2011 7:17 PM, "George Gastaldi" <gegastaldi at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gegastaldi at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > +1 to the multiple sources idea
> >
> > Em 20/08/2011, às 20:01, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sbryzak at redhat.com>> escreveu:
> >
> > We could possibly do it by specifying additional source directories 
> for each
> > profile.
> >
> > 
> http://chadthedeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/02/maven2-multiple-source-directories-and.html
> >
> > On 21/08/11 08:59, Jason Porter wrote:
> >
> > Can we add additional tests with this though for each container?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2011, at 16:35, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sbryzak at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > That might be one way we can do it - Ken, what do you think about
> > structuring the test suite like this?
> >
> > https://gist.github.com/1155271
> >
> >
> > On 21/08/11 08:27, Jason Porter wrote:
> >
> > Maybe something in surefire, or what aslak said on twitter may be 
> helpful.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2011, at 16:21, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sbryzak at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm currently looking into it.
> >
> > On 21/08/11 08:04, Jason Porter wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to add a source directory or test directory?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2011, at 15:36, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sbryzak at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately that doesn't work - the issue occurs when the artifacts
> > being unpacked are in the same reactor. See
> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MDEP-98
> >
> > On 21/08/11 01:11, Ken Finnigan wrote:
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, that error is resolved by installing the artifacts.
> >
> > The problem is that it doesn't know how to unpack a directory, so 
> the jar
> > with the test classes needs to be installed for it to work
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2011, at 11:02, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sbryzak at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I've made some progress in this area, so far I've created a few of the
> > container boms in seam-parent and also started converting the Solder 
> tests
> > to use the new structure.
> >
> > I have run into one issue though - when running the tests I'm 
> encountering
> > the error below. The reason it hasn't manifested in the International
> > module is because there was a version mismatch between some of the test
> > suite artifacts, however if you synchronize them all you get the 
> same error.
> >
> > [INFO] Reactor Summary:
> > [INFO]
> > [INFO] Seam International Test Suite: Aggregator ......... SUCCESS 
> [1.224s]
> > [INFO] Seam Container BOMs Aggregator .................... SUCCESS 
> [0.025s]
> > [INFO] Weld EE Embedded 1.1 Container .................... SUCCESS 
> [0.899s]
> > [INFO] JBoss AS7 Managed Container ....................... SUCCESS 
> [2.722s]
> > [INFO] Seam International Test Suite Common .............. SUCCESS 
> [0.376s]
> > [INFO] Seam International Test Suite: Internals Integration Tests 
> SUCCESS
> > [0.013s]
> > [INFO] Seam International Test Suite: Internals Integration Tests Base
> > SUCCESS [0.743s]
> > [INFO] Seam International Test Suite: Internals Integration Tests 
> for JBoss
> > AS FAILURE [2.529s]
> > [INFO] Seam International Test Suite: Internals Integration Tests 
> for Weld
> > EE Embedded SKIPPED
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] BUILD FAILURE
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [INFO] Total time: 9.393s
> > [INFO] Finished at: Sun Aug 21 00:55:38 EST 2011
> > [INFO] Final Memory: 25M/348M
> > [INFO]
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-dependency-plugin:2.1:unpack
> > (unpack-base-tests) on project
> > seam-international-testsuite-integration-internals-jbossas: Error 
> unpacking
> > file:
> > 
> /home/shane/project/seam/international/testsuite/internals/base/target/classes
> > to:
> > 
> /home/shane/project/seam/international/testsuite/internals/jbossas/target/test-classes
> > [ERROR] org.codehaus.plexus.archiver.ArchiverException: The source 
> must not
> > be a directory.
> > [ERROR] -> [Help 1]
> >
> >
> > I've spent a little time trying to find a workaround but it seems 
> that this
> > has been a known bug in Maven for at least 4 years. If anyone wants 
> to take
> > a look at this and try to figure out a workaround in the meantime 
> please be
> > my guest.
> >
> > Shane
> >
> >
> > On 30/07/11 12:16, Ken Finnigan wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I've committed the work on the Arquillian testsuite infrastructure 
> on the
> > i18n module which can be found here:
> > https://github.com/seam/international/tree/develop/testsuite
> >
> > Here are some notes on how it's structured and what needs to be done:
> >
> >
> > - API and Impl modules still retain unit tests that don't require
> > container testing
> > - testsuite/common includes Deployment and Library helpers and anything
> > that would be common to multiple types of testsuites, such as internals,
> > smoke, etc
> > - The helpers from this module could potentially be pulled up into a
> > common module for all, but that may introduce complexity in
> > trying to use it
> > in each module so may be best to leave it there for the moment
> > and see how
> > it goes
> > - testsuite/container-boms contains the container definition for weld ee
> > embedded and AS7. Others can be found at
> > 
> https://github.com/mojavelinux/arquillian-showcase/tree/master/container-boms
> > - One of the first things that needs to happen is these container-boms
> > need to be created in a seam parent module of some kind such that each
> > module can utilize them without having to replicate the content directly
> > - testsuite/internals/base contains the test classes that used to be
> > within impl. For i18n I was able to leave the entirety of the test 
> classes
> > in the bases module and simply explode it into the target/test-classes
> > directory of the testsuite/internals/${container} modules as part of the
> > integration-test phase.
> > - To make it easier to then explode the jar built from this module
> > into sub modules, the test classes and resources actually need to be in
> > src/main. As we don't plan using the jar built from this for
> > anything other
> > than testing it's not an issue.
> > - container tests are only activated on the integration-test phase
> > and skipped on the basic test phase
> > - 
> https://github.com/seam/international/blob/develop/testsuite/README.mdoutlines
> > all the proposed types of suites that testsuite can contain. I
> > believe an initial first step should be to move the existing container
> > tests, or create some, for the internals module. Over time we can 
> then look
> > to flesh out the testsuite with additional types such as smoke, cluster,
> > api, etc
> > - One area that I haven't looked at yet is code coverage given that the
> > tests are further spread than previously. I'm hoping that it will be
> > relatively easy to amalgamate all the coverage data to produce a single
> > report.
> >
> > Any questions about this please let me know.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > seam-dev mailing
> > 
> listseam-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev 
> <http://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > seam-dev mailing list
> > seam-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:seam-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > seam-dev mailing list
> > seam-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:seam-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20110821/c8978406/attachment-0001.html 