[wildfly-dev] Elytron integration tests in WildFly testsuite

[Tomaž Cerar]

So if I understood all this correctly,
this mail here was more of a heads up what is happening
than a discussion on how could or should be best done.

I just hope you (the team behind decisions) considered all scenarios how
will that impact everyone involved.

--
tomaz

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/wildfly-dev/attachments/20161202/27748047/attachment-0001.html