Hi Chris, I think it makes a lot of sense. I would also be interested to see if we could also
1) Test features install cleanly 2) Test the distribution samples using the same approach. /Dave On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Chris Custine <[email protected]> wrote: > Jean-Baptiste suggested in another thread that we consider moving to SMX4 > for component testing, and this has also crossed my mind recently so we > thought it bet to start a specific thread to discuss this. > > I think it will certainly be a requirement to automate testing of > components > inside SMX4, but there are also some more immediate motivations for doing > this in order to test components with updated dependencies used in SMX4. > After using Pax Exam a bit lately with the SMX4 itests, I am wondering if > that would be a suitable mechanism to test components with SMX4? I think > this would certainly be a more accurate test of integration with the > runtime > than the current tests, although there will possibly be a performance > penalty when running tests due to the more heavyweight nature. > Alternatively, we could bootstrap some smaller chunk of SMX4 in order to > perform more isolated tests without starting a full container. > > I am currently leaning towards using Pax Exam because it would provide a > very accurate representation of the component running inside the container. > This would include deployment and startup lifecycle, interaction with > runtime dependencies, etc. which is slightly more accurate than the current > tests. > > One final question is whether SMX4 provides an adequate test environment > that is reciprocal with SMX3. We have been relying on SMX3 for testing > components that are also deployed in SMX4, so is this also good enough the > other way around or do we need to keep both? One of the downsides of the > current tests is that many of the components have their own base tests that > create the appropriate environment in which to test, and I think this has > made the tests harder to maintain. I think one of the goals for this would > be to make test authoring much easier. > > So what are everyone's thoughts on this? > > Thanks, > Chris > -- > Chris Custine > FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com > My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com > Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org > Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org >
