[wildfly-dev] Elytron integration tests in WildFly testsuite

[Jan Kalina]

I agree with Josef - it looks like more or less most of integration
tests can be affected by security features.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Josef Cacek <jcacek at redhat.com> wrote:
> We prefer duplication of all tests in the testsuite to keep test coverage.
>
> To be sure we don't have regressions with introducing Elytron and at the same time we are able to cover current features with Elytron, we must run all tests with both security subsystems.
> Even if a test is not security related on the first glance, the tested component may use a security feature internally. By switching to the new security subsystem the feature may stop work.
>
> Let's keep the current (legacy security based) tests alive until the legacy security subsystem is fully removed.
> Then we'll simply remove the *-legacy-security testsuite modules.
>
> -- Josef
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tomaž Cerar" <tomaz.cerar at gmail.com>
>> To: "Darran Lofthouse" <darran.lofthouse at jboss.com>
>> Cc: wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 12:37:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [wildfly-dev] Elytron integration tests in WildFly testsuite
>>
>> That is probably fine, but! it should be done differently.
>>
>> instead of duplicating whole testsuite (and adding extra hour to execution
>> and extra headaches with intermittent problems and duplication of
>> maintenance)
>> I would suggest that all security related tests get extracted to new
>> "security" testsuite module and than only that part is duplicated.
>>
>> This way we will have all security related stuff in one place.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Darran Lofthouse <
>> darran.lofthouse at jboss.com > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Probably should add - any duplication should only be for security tests
>> - not everything else in there!
>>
>> On 02/12/16 11:08, Darran Lofthouse wrote:
>> > On 02/12/16 11:03, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Josef Cacek < jcacek at redhat.com
>> >> <mailto: jcacek at redhat.com >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The modules would just live side by side - basic would use Elytron
>> >> configuration, basic-legacy-security would use configuration similar
>> >> to (or same as) the current server configuration.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What would this actually mean?
>> >> we will have two copies basic tests suites one running with elytron
>> >> another with legacy security subsystem?
>> >>
>> >> Do I read that right? Please say I am not.
>> >
>> > That is correct - we have two security implementations they both need
>> > testing.
>> >
>> > One needs testing for backwards compatibility and regressions, the other
>> > for equivalent behaviour and then new features and bugs.
>> >
>> > Needing to test both was discussed previously so this is more about how
>> > to separate both and also give the Elytron testing a good foundation to
>> > start from.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> >> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev