[wildfly-dev] Missing transformer tests

Tue Mar 12 04:57:08 EDT 2019

> Since there is no structural changes, and the new one has wider
access-type, any operations from old version HC should have no problem.  Do
we still need transformer tests in this case?

A test would not hurt, just to make sure everything else works.
If there are no structural changes beyond access-type test should  be also
very simple.

--
tomaz

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 3:19 AM Cheng Fang <cfang at redhat.com> wrote:

> For ejb3 subsystem, 2 attributes (bean-cache and cache-container under
> passivation-store element) changed their access-type from read-only to
> read-write.  The change occurred in WildFly 16 (Dec 20, 2018
> <https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/commit/f8ceb2daac6ee16b27991a402dcda63d8e54967a#diff-6b005fa5eeb1b374b19a3a9f1fe9f64eL48>).
> I created WFLY-11778 <https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-11778> (Missing
> ejb3 transformer tests) to track the ejb3 part of this issue.
>
> Since there is no structural changes, and the new one has wider
> access-type, any operations from old version HC should have no problem.  Do
> we still need transformer tests in this case?
>
> Thanks,
> Cheng
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:41 AM Brian Stansberry <
> brian.stansberry at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 9:07 AM Kabir Khan <kkhan at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> TL;DR: It looks like we may be missing transformer tests in the
>>> following subsystems: ejb3, infinispan, jca, logging, undertow. I've not
>>> dug in beyond that.
>>>
>>> Full:
>>> We have been using ModelTestControllerVersion.EAP_7_2_0_TEMP (containing
>>> WF14) for transformer testing until EAP 7.2.0 was released. [1] renames
>>> this to be EAP_7_2_0 and points to EAP 7.2.0.
>>>
>>> In addition I have some WIP to update the full mixed domain and
>>> subsystem tests to do the same. When doing this I noticed that the only
>>> subsystem that had transformer tests referencing EAP_7_2_0_TEMP was
>>> modcluster. I knew messaging-activemq had some changes, which Emmanuel is
>>> looking at.
>>>
>>> I've run the model comparison tool against master/7.2.0: and see changes
>>> which might be significant:
>>>
>>> ====== Resource root address: ["subsystem" => "ejb3"] - Current version:
>>> 0.0.0; legacy version: 5.0.0 =======
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["passivation-store" => "*"]:
>>> Different 'access-type' for attribute 'bean-cache'. Current:
>>> "read-write"; legacy: "read-only"
>>> Different 'access-type' for attribute 'cache-container'. Current:
>>> "read-write"; legacy: "read-only"
>>>
>>> ====== Resource root address: ["subsystem" => "infinispan"] - Current
>>> version: 0.0.0; legacy version: 8.0.0 =======
>>> * --- Problems for relative address to root ["remote-cache-container" =>
>>> "*"]:
>>> Different 'default' for attribute 'protocol-version'. Current: "2.9";
>>> legacy: "2.8"
>>>
>>>
>>> ====== Resource root address: ["subsystem" => "jca"] - Current version:
>>> 0.0.0; legacy version: 5.0.0 =======
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["distributed-workmanager" =>
>>> "*","long-running-threads" => "*"]:
>>> * Missing attributes in current: [handoff-executor]; missing in legacy []
>>> * Missing parameters for operation 'add' in current: [handoff-executor];
>>> missing in legacy []
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["distributed-workmanager" =>
>>> "*","short-running-threads" => "*"]:
>>> * Missing attributes in current: [handoff-executor]; missing in legacy []
>>> * Missing parameters for operation 'add' in current: [handoff-executor];
>>> missing in legacy []
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["workmanager" =>
>>> "*","long-running-threads" => "*"]:
>>> * Missing attributes in current: [handoff-executor]; missing in legacy []
>>> * Missing parameters for operation 'add' in current: [handoff-executor];
>>> missing in legacy []
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["workmanager" =>
>>> "*","short-running-threads" => "*"]:
>>> * Missing attributes in current: [handoff-executor]; missing in legacy []
>>> * Missing parameters for operation 'add' in current: [handoff-executor];
>>> missing in legacy []
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["workmanager" =>
>>> "default","long-running-threads" => "*"]:
>>> * Missing attributes in current: [handoff-executor]; missing in legacy []
>>> * Missing parameters for operation 'add' in current: [handoff-executor];
>>> missing in legacy []
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["workmanager" =>
>>> "default","short-running-threads" => "*"]:
>>> * Missing attributes in current: [handoff-executor]; missing in legacy []
>>> * Missing parameters for operation 'add' in current: [handoff-executor];
>>> missing in legacy []
>>>
>>>
>>> ====== Resource root address: ["subsystem" => "logging"] - Current
>>> version: 0.0.0; legacy version: 7.0.0 =======
>>> * --- Problems for relative address to root ["json-formatter" => "*"]:
>>> Different 'default' for attribute 'record-delimiter'. Current: "
>>> "; legacy: ""
>>> * --- Problems for relative address to root ["logging-profile" =>
>>> "*","json-formatter" => "*"]:
>>> Different 'default' for attribute 'record-delimiter'. Current: "
>>> "; legacy: ""
>>> * --- Problems for relative address to root ["logging-profile" =>
>>> "*","xml-formatter" => "*"]:
>>> Different 'default' for attribute 'record-delimiter'. Current: "
>>> "; legacy: ""
>>> * --- Problems for relative address to root ["xml-formatter" => "*"]:
>>> Different 'default' for attribute 'record-delimiter'. Current: "
>>> "; legacy: ""
>>>
>>>
>>> ====== Resource root address: ["subsystem" => "undertow"] - Current
>>> version: 0.0.0; legacy version: 7.0.0 =======
>>> --- Problems for relative address to root ["application-security-domain"
>>> => "*"]:
>>> * Missing attributes in current: []; missing in legacy [enable-jaspi,
>>> integrated-jaspi]
>>> * Missing parameters for operation 'add' in current: []; missing in
>>> legacy [enable-jaspi, integrated-jaspi]
>>>
>>> Although WF16 doesn't provide any domain mode guarantees for previous
>>> releases, this will one day end up as a product release and then it is
>>> important that we have these tests in place. It is easier to add them as we
>>> go along than to retrofit them when that time comes.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Kabir for running the check and for the heads up!
>>
>> This needs to be correct in WildFly regardless of any EAP requirements.
>> I believe the domain mode transformation chain from WF 14 all the way back
>> to at least 11 is correct. There is no reason it shouldn't be extended to
>> 16.
>>
>> Even though any fix would only come in 16, the correct way to write the
>> transformation for something that changed in 15 is as if it had been done
>> in 15. Write the transformation code for 15 -> 14 (constants, method names
>> etc) and then if there are further changes for 16 -> 15, do those. Let
>> future readers of the code read code that reflects the history of the
>> management API.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Kabir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-core/pull/3664
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>>> wildfly-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brian Stansberry
>> Manager, Senior Principal Software Engineer
>> Red Hat
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190312/99a8114a/attachment.html 