> I was meaning "how do you say 'not anymore'? Ah ... just mean that we have opinions from you, me, Christian and JB at the moment. Sorry for unclear statement.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org] > Sent: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 11:14 > To: dev@syncope.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: Extract syncope system/integration tests into > separate project > > On 12/12/2012 11:10, Andrei Shakirin wrote: > >> How do you say that? > > But a itest Maven module it's a good think (it's what we have most of > projects, like Karaf, ServiceMix, etc). > > Regards > > JB > > > > I interpret it as +1, am I wrong? > > Of course not (see [1] for a link to Jean-Baptiste's e-mail). > I was meaning "how do you say 'not anymore'? > > >> I am actually interested to hear from anyone, especially committers. > > Sure. > > [1] > http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/Extract-syncope-system- > integration-tests-into-separate-project-tp5711318p5711319.html > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org] > >>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012 10:48 > >>>> To: dev@syncope.apache.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: Extract syncope system/integration tests > >>>> into separate project > >>>> > >>>> On 12/12/2012 10:44, Andrei Shakirin wrote: > >>>>> Hi Francesco, > >>>>> > >>>>> I still see some benefits to extract integration tests applying to > >>>>> whole web > >>>> application from real unit tests checking logic located only in > >>>> current > >> module. > >>>>> I agree that it is not urgent task at the moment, although it will > >>>>> make my > >>>> development cycle faster even now. > >>>>> Do you have any concerns if I create jira for this with minor priority? > >>>> No at all, even though I'd prefer to hear also someone else's > >>>> though about this before getting into JIRA: it's only you, me and > Christian so far... > >>>> > >>>> Regards. > >>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org] > >>>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012 11:25 > >>>>>> To: dev@syncope.apache.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: Extract syncope system/integration > >>>>>> tests into separate project > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/12/2012 10:40, Andrei Shakirin wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi Francesco, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yep, we need kind of plan to synchronize our work. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I see the following order: > >>>>>>> 1. Merge the DEV_ROLE_PROVISIONING (Francesco) 2. Separate > >>>>>> persistence > >>>>>>> layer SYNCOPE-241, SYNCOPE-242 (Christian) 3. Extract > >>>>>>> integration/system tests (Andrei) 4. Merge CXF branch (Jan, > >>>>>>> Christian, > >>>>>>> Andrei) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For (4) some work still should be done, so I see this merge in > >>>>>>> the next > >>>> year. > >>>>>>> What do you think? > >>>>>> It sounds fine, as long as we agree that (3) is a good thing for > >>>>>> the project, as it happened for (1), (2) and (4) :-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regarding integration/system tests, I have some reasons to move > >>>>>>> them > >>>>>> into separate maven module: > >>>>>>> 1) Integration and system tests are normally use not the single, > >>>>>>> but multiple modules (in syncope soon it will be core and > >>>>>>> persistence modules, further even more) > >>>>>> Correct, but I don't see any reason to not keep the integration > >>>>>> tests bundled with the module providing the REST interface. > >>>>>> With maven, src/test is for tests and src/main for actual source > >>>>>> code, isn't > >>>> it? > >>>>>> ;-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Actually running integration tests takes about 3 mins, but I > >>>>>>> expect it will > >>>>>> grow in the future. For me it is a reason to separate fast JUnit > >>>>>> tests and integration tests to make development cycle shorter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It could be, but I don't see any reason for worrying about this now. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Integration and system tests normally require specific > >>>>>>> dependencies and > >>>>>> logic: cargo plugin, unzip/copy web application, etc. Syncope can > >>>>>> also be tested with different servlet containers (tomcat, > >>>>>> glassfish, > >>>>>> TomEE+, etc). I think placing this deps and logic in one project > >>>>>> TomEE+and > >>>>>> reusing it has some benefits. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Syncope core can be already tested against many servlet > >>>>>> containers and many DBMSes (I went into more details about this in > [1]). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4) Separate module for systests is kind of common practice in > >>>>>>> many apache > >>>>>> projects: CXF, Camel, Karaf. Therefore separation can make > >>>>>> understanding of Syncope build process more easy for communities > >>>>>> from other apache projects. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The projects you are mentioning are frameworks, and I see > >>>>>> perfectly normal that for testing a framework you need to build > >>>>>> test applications; but Syncope core is a web application, not a > framework. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> What is your opinion? > >>>>>> My concerns stand still; mainly, I don't see the point of having > >>>>>> a Maven artifact like > >>>>>> org.apache.syncope:syncope-core-integration- > >> tests. > >>>>>> Regards. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] > >>>>>> http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/Introducing-myself- > and- > >> a- > >>>>>> proposal-to-modularize-the-core-tp5711268p5711283.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Montag, 10. Dezember 2012 09:57 > >>>>>>>> To: dev@syncope.apache.org > >>>>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Re: Extract syncope system/integration tests > >>>>>>>> into separate project > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>> let's try to make some order :-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The current situation is: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. I am about to merge the DEV_ROLE_PROVISIONING branch > >>>>>>>> into the > >>>>>> trunk > >>>>>>>> 2. Jan (with help from Christian) will then merge the cxf > >>>>>>>> branch into the trunk and also apply some refactoring (see > >>>>>>>> SYNCOPE-241 and > >>>>>>>> SYNCOPE-242) by splitting the core module > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> After (2) will have completed, we can think to discuss about > >>>>>>>> additional refactoring, IMO. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now, I am not completely sure about the proposed refactoring, > >>>>>>>> especially after what I expect from (2): could you please give > >>>>>>>> more details about the benefits? > >>>>>>>> For example, I am not sure that moving test classes and > >>>>>>>> resources in separate modules (hence making such classes part > >>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>> release) is necessarily a good thing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 09:41, Andrei Shakirin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi JB, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I mean just maven module, sure :) What do you prefer as a > name? > >>>>>>>>> a) itests > >>>>>>>>> b) systests > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Andrei. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2012 20:47 > >>>>>>>>>> To: dev@syncope.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Extract syncope system/integration tests into > >>>>>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>> project > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrei, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> by separate project, you mean a "real" project (with its own > >>>>>>>>>> release cycle, artifacts, svn repo, etc), or just a Maven module ? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's a good idea to have it in a separate "real" > >>>>>>>>>> project as it's coupled to the others > artifacts/modules/codebase. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But a itest Maven module it's a good think (it's what we have > >>>>>>>>>> most of projects, like Karaf, ServiceMix, etc). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2012 07:37 PM, Andrei Shakirin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest to extract integration and system tests into > >>>>>>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>>>> project. From my perspective it makes management of tests > and > >>>>>>>>>> build process more transparent and easy. Of course, JUnit > >>>>>>>>>> tests will stay in corresponded projects. > >>>>>>>>>>> Does it make sense? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>> Andrei. > > -- > Francesco Chicchiriccò > > ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member > http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
