[wildfly-dev] Elytron integration tests in WildFly testsuite

[Darran Lofthouse]

No the part we can't avoid is that we have two security implementations 
in the server and we have to have tests for both.  The e-mail from Josef 
is a suggestion as to how this will be achieved.

Other suggestions are welcome ;-)

But we have two security implementations to test.

One of these is deprecated and will hopefully be removed at some point 
so ideally we have something that allows testing to legacy to be removed 
without too much pain.

Writing sufficient test coverage is not a small task so anything that 
gives us more than starting from scratch is a benefit.

But maybe it would be worth summarising these additional scenarios that 
will be affected by changes.

Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.

On 02/12/16 14:47, Tomaž Cerar wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:tomaz.cerar at gmail.com>>
>     > To: "Darran Lofthouse" <darran.lofthouse at jboss.com
>     <mailto:darran.lofthouse at jboss.com>>
>     > Cc: wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
>     > >> <mailto: 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 <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>     <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
>     > >>
>     > >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > wildfly-dev mailing list
>     > wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>     <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > wildfly-dev mailing list
>     > wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>     <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev>
>
>