Just to clarify, we're saying when adding a service to the mpack that Kerberos support is required... but we're not saying that installing Metron requires a kerberized cluster correct? I think we should support it but should allow installation and use of Metron without it (for testing or other reasons determined by the user).
-Kyle > On Apr 13, 2017, at 12:55 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My thought was that if it was a requirement, or blocker for contribution we > would want > to provide something to help. > > I am not sure everyone will have a kerberos cluster to test with. Maybe > they will. > Maybe the answer is Docker or Vagrant as Casey suggests and not integration > testing. > > > > On April 13, 2017 at 12:02:08, James Sirota (jsir...@apache.org) wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > I don't like further bloating our integration tests so I am not sure I like > the idea. I think when people add new services they should test on real > clusters using kerberos. Also, community members can take on end-to-end > testing in advance of a release on a cluster using kerberos. But I think > adding this to our integration test framework is just too much. > > 13.04.2017, 08:12, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com>: >> I honestly don't know if we can mock out a KDC for integration tests. If >> we did move the integration tests to running against docker, that might > be >> an option as we could dockerize a KDC as well. >> >> Long story short, "probably, but not for free. ;)" >> >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Can we test kerberized support in integration? >>> >>> On April 13, 2017 at 10:24:43, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>> Agreed, +1 >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This should be in the dev guide and pr template >>>> >>>> On April 13, 2017 at 09:43:48, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) > wrote: >>>> >>>> Based on my understanding, we have a few axioms that we're working > from: >>>> >>>> - The installer should install a complete and workable product (i.e. >>>> after install, everything should work). Afterall, that has to be the >>>> sensible definition of 'working' for an installer >>>> - Metron should support running in a Kerberized environment >>>> >>>> If we are going to support kerberos and the installer is going to > install >>>> the product, then I would consider lack of kerberos support for a >>>> component >>>> to block inclusion into the mpack. >>>> >>>> Casey >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is a PR up for review ( >>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/518) that updates > our >>>>> MPack >>>>> to support a Kerberized environment. There is also a PR up for > review >>>> that >>>>> adds the REST service to the MPack ( >>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/500). >>>>> >>>>> However, the REST application currently does not work in a > kerberized >>>>> environment. That work has already started so it won't be an issue > for >>>>> long but how should we handle situations like this in the future > where >>>> we >>>>> want to add a service but it's not quite ready for Kerberos? Should >>>>> Kerberos support be a prerequisite before it's added to the MPack? >>>> Should >>>>> we look at ways to make these services optional? Any other thoughts > or >>>>> ideas? >>>>> >>>>> Ryan >>>>> > > ------------------- > Thank you, > > James Sirota > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) > jsirota AT apache DOT org
