Have you look to this page how to setup it ? http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxexam/Using+Pax+Runner+provisioning+methods
Charles Moulliard Senior Enterprise Architect Apache Camel Committer ***************************** blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > based on this thread discuss, I have: > - add required dependencies in the dependencyManagement of the > components-pom: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/servicemix/components/components-pom/trunk/pom.xml > - begin to use pax-exam in the exec component: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/servicemix/components/engines/servicemix-exec/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/servicemix/exec/itest/smx4/ > > Unfortunately, I have an issue with the scanFeatures() method of pax-exam. > > I would like to deploy JBI feature into a felix instance using pax-exam. As > mentioned by Guillaume, I do: > > Option[] options = options( > profile("log").version("1.4"), > org.ops4j.pax.exam.CoreOptions.systemProperty("org.ops4j.pax.logging.DefaultServiceLog.level").value("DEBUG"), > scanFeatures(mavenBundle().groupId("org.apache.servicemix.nmr").artifactId("apache-servicemix-nmr").version("1.1.0-SNAPSHOT").type("xml/features"), > "jbi"), felix()); > > As jbi feature is versionned, I get this exception in the unit test: > java.lang.RuntimeException: > > org.ops4j.pax.runner.provision.ScannerException: Cannot find a feature named > 'jbi' with version '0.0.0' > > I'm going to check in the pax-exam source code to see how I can manage the > feature versionning. > > I will keep you posted. > > Regards > JB > > Chris Custine 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 >> >
