Eric, Is there a reason these cannot be done in Mockito or EasyMock?
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Eric Newton <eric.new...@gmail.com> wrote: > -1 > > I'm a little more invested in Mock since I wrote the first instance of it. > I know it does not simulate the accumulo API perfectly. And I know it > adds some maintenance overhead for anyone adding new features to the API. > > However, adding additional testing requirements for a new API is something > I like. > > Take a counter example: the "file://" hdfs implementation. It allows you > to use the local file system through the same API you would use for the > distributed file system. > > Except, it doesn't. It does not behave the same as hdfs. None of our > recovery tests can use the local fs implementation because it just doesn't > implement the proper flush semantics. > > Yet dozens of our own tests rely on the speedy availability of the local fs > implementation. > > Having a fast way to test iterators that uses a test harness is not the > same thing as testing the iterators using the same API they would use > without Mock. I have long called for an iterator test harness to stress > the issues of iterator lifetimes. > > Finally, I would humbly suggest that our software has stabilized to the > point where we tests at all levels: > > * iterator stress tester > * Mock API > * Integration test using MAC > * System tests that can be run at full scale > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 for keeping a fast and easy (and well documented) mechanism for >> debugging iterators. Perhaps the SortedMapiterator is the solution..but the >> key words here are 'well documented' >> >> -1 for continuing support a half implemented mock framework that we have to >> maintain. It makes code maintenance very hard when you couldnt, for >> instance in the 1.3 series, even create a MockBatchDeleter. As Chris >> stated, I agree that using the mock in the past had users walking the line >> too closely between unit and integration tests. With the mock, I could >> write a bunch of fully valid tests against an iterator without the ability >> to verify that compactions didn't negatively affect my results. Except for >> being fast, the MAC mostly eliminates the need to use the mock for that >> kind of test at all while it makes the tests more valid to an actual >> runtime environment. >> >> +1 for mocking framework to be used in relevant unit tests. There are times >> when a quick and dirty mock is immensely useful and MAC is slow and way >> overkill for those tasks. Perhaps it would be worth a ticket to investigate >> replacing the current usages of mockAccumulo (I haven't looked in awhile) >> with said mocking framework. >> >> On Nov 15, 2013 3:29 PM, "Michael Berman" <mber...@sqrrl.com> wrote: >> > >> > +1 (not really a voter) >> > >> > I think iterator unit tests should use SortedMapIterator, not anything >> like >> > a full accumulo stack, and I think MAC is far more suitable for >> integration >> > tests because it actually runs the same code...it's impossible for an >> > outsider to tell in which behaviors mock reflects actual accumulo and in >> > which it does something totally different. >> > >> > I do think MAC needs some help, but I think the process of excising mock >> > from our own tests will flesh out what we need there better than anything >> > else we could do. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > *From:* Keith Turner [mailto:ke...@deenlo.com] >> > > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:42 PM >> > > *To:* dev@accumulo.apache.org; u...@accumulo.apache.org >> > > *Subject:* [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0? This was considered [1] >> for >> > > 1.5.0. I started thinking about this because I never added conditional >> > > writer to mock. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878 >> > > >>
