I think embracing Docker is how we can identify if a plugin works in multiple versions of Solr. The setup of such a test would start Solr via Docker and install the plugin into a Solr server using the package manager. The test code itself would interact with Solr purely via SolrClient. This would be an integration / smoke level test for the plugin. I test my plugins at work similar to this way at a "smoke" level, which follows "integration". What's cool is that we can take the very same test and either have it run via an embedded Solr (which we call an integration test) or a remote'ed Solr (run via Docker, which we call our "smoke" test). Naturally, if a test makes assumptions that only work in embedded, then it won't run in smoke mode, so we have annotations to categorize the tests. I'd like to work on some JUnit "Rule" for Solr, similar to what I have at work (and have done in the past) -- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11872
~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoss, > One important reason why separate repo for solr-extras is a good idea, as > opposed to conrib modules, is that separate repo can be used to test > against many Solr versions. Imagine a component that works across Solr > versions 6x through 9x from day one. I can't imagine such a component being > part of the lucene-solr repo itself. > > Also, today, contrib modules are shipped with Solr, which we don't want > for new things we might want to build. > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:25 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I haven't been able to follow up on creation of the extras repo, but more >> importantly I wanted to respond to Hoss. I'm out on an emergency for a week >> or so, shall resume then. If there's a decision on this until then, I shall >> accept it. >> >> On Mon, 25 Jan, 2021, 9:04 am Jason Gerlowski, <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Tentative +1 to Hoss' questions. I agree with his summary of the >>> potential risks here, and I share his ignorance of the perceived >>> benefits. >>> >>> (I thought for a time that this was driven by interest in having >>> release cadences independent from Solr-core releases. I'm all for >>> that goal, but if that's the motivation I'm not sure what the obstacle >>> is to doing that with a single repo - all build systems these days >>> support versioning and releasing modules independent of one another. >>> But maybe that was never a driving factor here.) >>> >>> I know there have been a lot of discussions about this, and I know the >>> repo has already been created. So maybe it's too late to object even >>> if I wanted to, which I'm not sure I do. But can someone that >>> understands the motivation please summarize what multiple-repos gets >>> us over a single repo that outweighs the "cons" that Hoss mentioned? >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:34 PM Chris Hostetter >>> <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > : As we discussed over the last few months, there seems a need to move >>> > : non-core pieces away from the Solr core module. The contribs are >>> presently >>> > : a good place, but it makes sense to have a separate git repository >>> hosting >>> > : such modules. Some candidates that come to mind are the present day >>> contrib >>> > >>> > can you explain why it makes sense to have a separate git repo for >>> these >>> > things? >>> > >>> > I can think of lots of reasons why it makes sense to have a single >>> > repo for all things solr (unified CI that quickly identifies if core >>> > changes break "first order" plugins, shared feature branches & >>> monotomic >>> > commits of code that affects APIs and impls of those APIs, etc...) but >>> > I've yet to see any concrete specifics of why multiple git repos are >>> > "better" then just having distinct sub-projects (with distinct >>> artifacts) >>> > in the same repo other then "it makes sense" >>> > >>> > why does it make sense? >>> > >>> > why can't the ideas of "solr-sandbox" and "solr-extras" just be >>> > directories in the "solr repo" ? ... what value is gained by making >>> them >>> > new repos? >>> > >>> > >>> > -Hoss >>> > http://www.lucidworks.com/ >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> > >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >>>
