+1 ValidatesRunner On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> Nice. I like ValidatesRunner. > > On Nov 10, 2016 03:39, "Amit Sela" <amitsel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > How about @ValidatesRunner ? > > Seems to complement @NeedsRunner as well. > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the > capability > > > matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' > doc). > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Huge +1 to this. > > > > > > > > The two categories I care most about are: > > > > > > > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under > > > test"; > > > > today this is NeedsRunner. > > > > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is > > > > RunnableOnService. > > > > > > > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think > we > > > can > > > > make good choices, like we already do. > > > > > > > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a > > > pitfall: > > > > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not > > have a > > > > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. > > > > > > > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make > > clear > > > > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want > > > > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. > > > > > > > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at > > > case > > > > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one > > > added. > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2 > > VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit > > > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > > > > > > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or > > > > @RunOnRunner > > > > > sound clearer. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After > > having > > > > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very > > > > >> intuitive > > > > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build > lightweight > > > > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have > > to > > > > run > > > > >> on a service. > > > > >> > > > > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone > have > > > > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight > to > > > > >> runner. > > > > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: > > > > >> > > > > >> - TestsWithRunners > > > > >> - RunnerExecutable > > > > >> > > > > >> Any thoughts? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Mark > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
