Hi Dave, Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking. Although for features installs, I am actually working on a larger package acceptance test within the actual assembly module. I like your suggestion about the sample and the assembly itests would be a good place for those as well.
So for the ocmponents, not only will we be testing the functionality, but we can also verify proper deployment and installation lifecycle. I had started some tests already, so I am going to look over Guillaume's tests and compare. Any other suggestions are welcomed! 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 On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Dave Stanley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
