Hi James, all, I can't remain silent. There's a counter-offering. We have an alternative which may sort the whole thing. The peppersoup project has developed a maintainable functional test set based on gherkin. It has over 600 business use cases going way beyond the surface. It has got to a point to be easy to make available to the community, what's more, be part of the development process and eventually replace the integration tests with a better version. Meanwhile -I hope I won't hurt feelings- but JMeter isn't the right tool for functional testing. Although it was possible to use it for that, it would look sort of unprofessional.
M/ On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:52 AM ANJIL CHINNAPATHLOLLA <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi James, > > > > In another week I will have the PR created. > > Making the test suite more generic to be consumable by wider community. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Anjil , > > Power Systems Performance > > > > “Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must set > yourself on fire.” > > > > *From: *James Dailey <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, 1 February 2024 at 1:10 PM > *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]>, ANJIL > CHINNAPATHLOLLA <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: API Test Case for Fineract > > To bring this to the top, is there a PR for this? Do we now have jMeter > asserts written that we can add to? Let's make it a default test that can > be skipped . ? On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 1: 01 AM Arnold Galovics <arnold@ > apache. org> wrote: Hi > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > > *This Message Is From an External Sender * > > This message came from outside your organization. > > > <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!12-vrJGw4rNbuq962SqFAmKzTse2VXoqajLDlauKunCCMeHBtSZ7S12GwV0WLLjAseYE2Pzj-YBoB3dyNM6JBuIlV9_etrOinesLw3_I58ysRkaUDCelFfizWQ$> > > Report Suspicious > <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!12-vrJGw4rNbuq962SqFAmKzTse2VXoqajLDlauKunCCMeHBtSZ7S12GwV0WLLjAseYE2Pzj-YBoB3dyNM6JBuIlV9_etrOinesLw3_I58ysRkaUDCelFfizWQ$> > > > > > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > To bring this to the top, is there a PR for this? Do we now have jMeter > asserts written that we can add to? > > > > Let's make it a default test that can be skipped . ? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 1:01 AM Arnold Galovics <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Victor, James, > > > > Just to circle back on one of the points - "I think the better approach is > to have a manual kick off as suggested by Victor.". > > > > Let's be careful with this approach. I've seen this practice many many > times and often the end result is that these suites are being left alone > and become super incompatible with the latest version of the application > over time, simply because you cannot enforce this suite to be kept > compatible. > > > > Best, > > Arnold > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:51 PM James Dailey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Anjil - I think this is a great idea and want to see your PR. > > > > Victor. As I noted in October 2020, one important principle is to make > sure this is maintainable by the project. (see comments > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1170 ) To that end, the > documentation and set up need to be reviewed before acceptance. It has to > be relatively easy to understand and maintain, and the initial contribution > should be documented enough to be maintained by someone other than Anjil, > although I fully hope that Anjil will remain involved 100% . > > > > Arnold has raised the importance of ensuring that it doesn't add to the > build time. I agree. My comment in 2020 was to include it as part of the > build (CI), but I think the better approach is to have a manual kick off as > suggested by Victor. > > > > Arnold has also asked about the completeness, reliability, and quality of > the tests. I would expect that we cannot know that until we see the > contribution that is proposed. We should then spend some time - i.e. > longer than the minimum time and less than a month - to fully review and > accept. > > > > Size of contribution? One of the check marks in the PR says "not a large > code dump". Does this qualify as a large code dump? If so, then it needs > additional review and acceptance. That can be part of the above extended > review period. > > > > Moreover, once this is in place, we then would add an expectation that all > new features would also need an assertion in the jmeter setup, prior to PR > acceptance. We would need to include jmeter assertion as a required part > of the PR. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:20 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Also I am bringing these Jira tickets into the conversation table > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1170 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1238 > > > > Regards > > > > Victor > > > > > > El mar, 16 ene 2024 a las 9:59, VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ (< > [email protected]>) escribió: > > Hello Arnold, > > > > - I am trying to show where to put the JMeter in the project structure, > not in a particular order. > > - The integration suite test cases are listed anywhere or it creates a > test case report that can be viewed or exported for later review? > > - JMeter is not for adding an extra layer/step during the build process, > but for being executed on demand. > > - About flakiness ... I don't get the point? Can it be explained a little > bit more? > > - Proposal of another folder in the Fineract project is to add the Jmeter > assets independently. > > > > Regards > > > > El mar, 16 ene 2024 a las 1:08, Arnold Galovics (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > > Hi guys, > > > > Despite the fact that I like extra test coverage, let's slow down a little > bit before rushing any integration. > > > > I'd have a couple of questions about these tests: > > - Victor, you're saying these tests should come before fineract-provider, > so within the regular build process yet these are JMeter, performance > related test cases. So what are the assertions in these? I'm a little > confused about what these are. > > - Did we do any cross-check with our integration suite if these test cases > are covered and we are not introducing duplication unnecessarily? > > - The build times are already slower than ever, did we evaluate how much > increase these would mean? > > - How about flakyness on these tests? > > - I'm also interested in the general quality of the tests because > maintainability on most of the existing integration test suite is difficult. > > > > Again, I'm not against any new test case/suite introduction, but let's > clarify the benefits and the drawbacks. > > > > Thanks. > > Best, > > Arnold > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 6:44 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Anjil, > > > > Version 1.9.0 is tagged at: > > > > https://github.com/apache/fineract/tree/1.9.0 > > > > Regards > > > > Victor > > > > El lun, 15 ene 2024 a las 23:42, ANJIL CHINNAPATHLOLLA (< > [email protected]>) escribió: > > Thanks Victor / Mugabe, > > > > I will verify the test suite against 1.9.0, make necessary minor changes > wherever required and raise the PR. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Anjil , > > Power Systems Performance > > > > *From: *Magezi Arthur <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 3:35 AM > *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: API Test Case for Fineract > > Great proposal here. Anjil this would definitely be of great help. MUGABE > MAGEZI ARTHUR Software Developer and Process Management Consultant emails: > artmagezi@ gmail. com atmagezi@ yahoo. co. uk Mob: +256704901261 > facebook: Magezi ArthurSkype: marthur26The > > Great proposal here. Anjil this would definitely be of great help. > > *MUGABE MAGEZI ARTHUR* > > Software Developer and > > Process Management Consultant > > emails: > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* > > Mob: +256704901261 > > facebook: Magezi Arthur > > Skype: marthur26 > > > > The Struggle the doesn't break you will make you, if you hold a little > longer under that fire you will certainly come out as Gold > > > > > > On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 20:37, VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Fineract Community, > > > > What do you think about integrating these tests on Apache Fineract. The > Apache JMeter Tests can be included in this way: > > > > Apache Fineract > > | > > ------Functional Test (Anjil contribution) > > | > > -----fineract-provider > > > > Do you have any comments about this proposal? > > > > Regards > > > > Victor Romero > > > > El vie, 12 ene 2024 a las 15:06, VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ (< > [email protected]>) escribió: > > Hello Anjil, > > > > I think it suits perfectly. Because it will help us to evaluate, verify, > test the functionality between release. I.E. a possible 1.8.5 release and > the 1.9.0. > > > > And this is important because with the results the community can be aware > of the changes requiered on its applicatons. > > > > I hope to listen (read) other community members opinion. > > > > Regards > > > > Victor > > El vie., 12 de enero de 2024 2:12 p. m., ANJIL CHINNAPATHLOLLA < > [email protected]> escribió: > > Hi Victor and community members, > > > > I have a JMeter based test suite of Fineract (1.8.4) REST APIs put > together for the performance evaluation of our Infrastructure. I have them > classified into two categories > > 1. Setup Test suite – This contains set of APIs to setup a banking > environment, define products etc. > 2. Transactions test suite – This contains various frequently run > account operations (Savings Deposits, withdrawals, balance enquiries, loan > disbursal etc) > > > > Posting below a screenshot of the test suits which can accommodate more > test cases into respective groups as the need arises. The test suit serves > the purpose of evaluating both functional as well as performance aspects of > the use cases across the builds. If we think this helps with the purpose > you are looking for below, I can contribute the test suits into the > Fineract GitHub (With appropriate modifications to be consumable by the > community). > > > > *Error! Filename not specified.* > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Anjil , > > Power Systems Performance > > > > “Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must set > yourself on fire.” > > > > *From: *VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]> > *Date: *Saturday, 13 January 2024 at 12:18 AM > *To: *Dev <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] API Test Case for Fineract > > Hello Fineract Community, I want to know if there is any Bundle of Test > Cases for Apache Fineract API Rest that can be used to test the Apache > Fineract vanilla version. - Create data codes (genders) - Create offices - > Create delinquency bucket- > > Hello Fineract Community, > > > > I want to know if there is any Bundle of Test Cases for Apache Fineract > API Rest that can be used to test the Apache Fineract vanilla version. > > > > - Create data codes (genders) > > - Create offices > > - Create delinquency bucket > > - Create loan product > > - Create client > > - Create loan account (application, approval, disbursement) > > - Create repayments. > > - Etc > > > > I know that we have in the source code testing case (unit/integration test > cases) that are executed as part of the building process, but this question > is more related to a bundle/orchestration of complete functional flows in > order to make sure that the nightly build or the release has a functional > quality check of its REST APIs. > > > > Regards > > > > Victor > >
