Github user joshelser commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/111#discussion_r67004643
--- Diff:
core/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/conf/AccumuloConfigurationTest.java
---
@@ -72,4 +72,79 @@ public void testGetPropertyByString() {
}
assertTrue("test was a dud, and did nothing", found);
}
+
+ @Test
+ public void testGetSinglePort() {
+ AccumuloConfiguration c =
AccumuloConfiguration.getDefaultConfiguration();
+ ConfigurationCopy cc = new ConfigurationCopy(c);
+ cc.set(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT, "9997");
+ int[] ports = cc.getPort(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT);
+ assertEquals(1, ports.length);
+ assertEquals(9997, ports[0]);
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ public void testGetAnyPort() {
+ AccumuloConfiguration c =
AccumuloConfiguration.getDefaultConfiguration();
+ ConfigurationCopy cc = new ConfigurationCopy(c);
+ cc.set(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT, "0");
+ int[] ports = cc.getPort(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT);
+ assertEquals(1, ports.length);
+ assertEquals(0, ports[0]);
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ public void testGetInvalidPort() {
+ AccumuloConfiguration c =
AccumuloConfiguration.getDefaultConfiguration();
+ ConfigurationCopy cc = new ConfigurationCopy(c);
+ cc.set(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT, "1020");
+ int[] ports = cc.getPort(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT);
+ assertEquals(1, ports.length);
+
assertEquals(Integer.parseInt(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT.getDefaultValue()),
ports[0]);
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ public void testGetPortRange() {
+ AccumuloConfiguration c =
AccumuloConfiguration.getDefaultConfiguration();
+ ConfigurationCopy cc = new ConfigurationCopy(c);
+ cc.set(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT, "9997-9999");
+ int[] ports = cc.getPort(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT);
+ assertEquals(3, ports.length);
+ assertEquals(9997, ports[0]);
+ assertEquals(9998, ports[1]);
+ assertEquals(9999, ports[2]);
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ public void testGetPortRangeInvalidLow() {
+ AccumuloConfiguration c =
AccumuloConfiguration.getDefaultConfiguration();
+ ConfigurationCopy cc = new ConfigurationCopy(c);
+ cc.set(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT, "1020-1026");
+ int[] ports = cc.getPort(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT);
+ assertEquals(3, ports.length);
+ assertEquals(1024, ports[0]);
+ assertEquals(1025, ports[1]);
+ assertEquals(1026, ports[2]);
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ public void testGetPortRangeInvalidHigh() {
+ AccumuloConfiguration c =
AccumuloConfiguration.getDefaultConfiguration();
+ ConfigurationCopy cc = new ConfigurationCopy(c);
+ cc.set(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT, "65533-65538");
+ int[] ports = cc.getPort(Property.TSERV_CLIENTPORT);
+ assertEquals(3, ports.length);
+ assertEquals(65533, ports[0]);
+ assertEquals(65534, ports[1]);
+ assertEquals(65535, ports[2]);
+ }
+
+ @Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class)
--- End diff --
> testGetPortRangeInvalidHigh does not throw an error
Right, but `testGetPortInvalidSyntax` does through an error when the upper
bound of the range is outside of the acceptable range.
> It truncates the range to a valid set of port numbers.
Exactly: why does one "range" syntax automatically truncate configuration
values to a valid range while another "range" syntax fail?
More over, why are we supporting multiple version of "range" syntax in the
first place?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
