[undertow-dev] Lightweight integration tests

[Flavia Rainone]

Robin,

We don't have anything right now apart from
io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler#dispatchMockRequest, so
you will have to dig in and try to write a mock yourself. Maybe I'll add
that to a future release plan but, for now, it is not on my radar either.

Flavia

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:52 PM Robin Anil <robin.anil at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Undertow-dev
>
> Could you see this request. Apologies for pinging Stuart directly. But I
> am looking for ways to write tests that exercise the  undertow handler
> chain tests going through the network.
>
> Robin
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:11 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not in the near future. I have mostly been working on Quarkus for the
>> moment, and Flavia has taken over as Undertow lead (I am still involved in
>> the project, I just don't have as much time to spend on it).
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 2:02 AM Robin Anil <robin.anil at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Stuart, just checking in again, is doing a local invocation of handlers
>>> without involving network on your radar?
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM Robin Anil <robin.anil at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not a lot of data. But most of our handlers are very fast and out test
>>>> suite is in the 2000 range and increasing
>>>>
>>>> - from a phone, xquz typoz
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 15, 2018 4:35 PM, "Stuart Douglas" <sdouglas at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For servlet there
>>>> is io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler#dispatchMockRequest,
>>>> however it is Servlet only at the moment and it pretty basic.
>>>>
>>>> That said though I am currently looking at adding support for a new
>>>> client+proxy implementation, and one of the things I want to support is
>>>> local invocation without involving the network, so doing a more general
>>>> version of this was on my radar.
>>>>
>>>> I am still surprised that the network is causing issues for your
>>>> integration tests though. How much data are these tests sending?
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Robin Anil <robin.anil at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Stuart,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to bring up undertow programmatically where the
>>>>> underlying HTTP/https transport is removed in favor or direction function
>>>>> calls
>>>>>
>>>>> Effectively, we have accumulated a lot of integration tests and are
>>>>> looking for ways to speed them up and at the moment, 80% of CPU time in the
>>>>> test is pretty data copies back and forth at the HTTP client and HTTP
>>>>> server.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I start refactoring our HTTP-handler chains to fake-undertow, I
>>>>> thought it might be good to ask.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> [image: Tock]
>>> <https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
>>>
>>> Robin Anil
>>> Director of Engineering
>>>
>>> Tock / exploretock.com
>>> <https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> [image: Tock]
> <https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
>
> Robin Anil
> Director of Engineering
>
> Tock / exploretock.com
> <https://www.exploretock.com/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=signature>
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev



-- 

Flavia Rainone

Principal Software Engineer

Red Hat

<https://www.redhat.com>
<https://red.ht/sig>
TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED <https://redhat.com/trusted>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/undertow-dev/attachments/20190412/d7834c96/attachment.html