I've added several JUnit test cases in openejb-core that should verify
IvmContext.list() behaviour, yet I'll feel safer if we keep the arquillian
test as well.

2017-07-11 10:10 GMT+03:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:

> side note: embedded (not tomcat based) testing is needed to ensure we don't
> break but doesn't fully test the ivmcontext code because the federation is
> different so guess starting with tomcat is not that bad.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/
> rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory
> <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>
>
> 2017-07-11 8:28 GMT+02:00 Svetlin Zarev <svetlin.angelov.za...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Thank you for sparing some time to look into my PR !
> >
> > > I’m not sure I can see how the test actually works
> >
> > The issue is that IvmContext.list() returns objects that are not really
> > bound into the listed context. For instance if you run the MCVE attached
> to
> > the jira ticket you'll see that it returns [1]. There you can see that
> > TestEJB is bound in "java:" (and even appears several times!) or that
> > "java:global" is bound in "java:module". But if you try to look up those
> > entries, the lookup fails with a NameNotFoundException, because all these
> > references are not really bound there. So the test recursively lists all
> > contexts in the JNDI tree and tries to lookup up every name-class pair
> that
> > is returned. If the lookup fails, it means that list() has returned
> > something that is not really there. You can compare [1] and [2] 9after
> the
> > fix) to see the difference in list()'s behaviour
> >
> > > Is there a test for listBindings?  It’s mentioned as also broken, but I
> > didn’t see a test for it.
> >
> > IvmContext.listBindings() and IvmContext.list() use the very same
> > IvmContext.MyNamingEnumeration abstract class and share the very same
> logic
> > to traverse the naming tree. I didn't write test for it because they
> share
> > the same code, but I can easily modify it to run aginst both methods.
> >
> > > What is the PrintWriter used for?  It seems it could be useful to
> assert
> > it prints what we expect.  Not sure if that is there and I am missing it.
> >
> > I thought it would be helpful to be able to see what went wrong if the
> test
> > fails. The IvmContextTest class collects the output from the servlet's
> > output stream (the print writer) and if the test fails it prints it in
> the
> > console.
> >
> > > There is an IvmContextTest, could we put the test there?
> >
> > That was my initial idea, but AppComposer's naming tree is very different
> > that tomee's. For instance it does not have the "app", "global", etc top
> > level contexts and my fix has special code for such top-level contexts. I
> > also was not bale to bind any env-entries to my EJB (I'm not really
> > familiar with how to write a proper appcomposer test, so I guess I didn't
> > do something that I should have.). The env-entries are needed just to
> > create a couple of branches to the tree in order to test if
> > MyNamingEnumeration.isMyChild() works correctly
> >
> > > so we could potentially skip the plumbing of the test->servlet->ejb.
> >
> > I'll look into it. I also have a few ideas for additioanl tests.
> >
> > [1] https://gist.github.com/SvetlinZarev/6b9377fe05b7887d681491c3e9e538
> 21
> > [2] https://gist.github.com/SvetlinZarev/db3b59404198cd494b45b23db7129e
> dd
> >
> > Bets regards,
> > Svetlin
> >
> > 2017-07-11 2:28 GMT+03:00 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Svetlin!
> > >
> > > This is an awesome catch.  Also, my apologies for the time you had to
> > > spend in that code.  It literally hasn’t changed much since 1999/2000
> and
> > > it shows. :)
> > >
> > > Looking at the PR I’m not sure I can see how the test actually works.
> > > Here’s what I can follow, any gaps you can fill in are excellent:
> > >
> > > The call chain as I can see it:
> > >
> > >  - IvmContextTest.testListContextTree
> > >  - IvmContextTest.validateTest("testListContextTree”)
> > >  [network call]
> > >  - IvmContextServlet.doGet     # invokes itself via reflection, returns
> > > “true” if no exception
> > >  [reflection call]
> > >  - IvmContextServlet.testListContextTree
> > >  - NamingBean.verifyListContext  # throws exception if listContext
> > returns
> > > false
> > >  - NamingBean.listContext
> > >
> > > Looks like the essence of the test is in NamingBean.listContext.
> Inside
> > > it looks like the heart of it is that if we can’t lookup an item
> listed,
> > we
> > > return false.
> > >
> > > Not sure if I got it perfectly, so definitely say so :)
> > >
> > > Couple questions:
> > >
> > >   - Is there a test for listBindings?  It’s mentioned as also broken,
> but
> > > I didn’t see a test for it.
> > >
> > >   - What is the PrintWriter used for?  It seems it could be useful to
> > > assert it prints what we expect.  Not sure if that is there and I am
> > > missing it.
> > >
> > >   - There is an IvmContextTest, could we put the test there?
> > >     https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/
> > > openejb-core/src/test/java/org/apache/openejb/ivm/naming/
> > > IvmContextTest.java
> > >
> > > On the last one I noted the patched code mentions Tomcat, so maybe it
> > does
> > > have to be Arquillian based.  If so, maybe we could still trim out some
> > of
> > > those layers.  I think Arquillian has the ability to execute remote
> code,
> > > so we could potentially skip the plumbing of the test->servlet->ejb.
> > >
> > > Regardless, looking IvmContext always makes my brain hurt so incredibly
> > > well done surviving it.  You’re clearly quite sharp.
> > >
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:08 AM, Svetlin Zarev
> > <svetlin.angelov.zarev@gmail.
> > > com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to propose the following fix: [1]. It fixes
> > > > IvmContext.list()/listBindings(). There are several issues that are
> > > being
> > > > addressed:
> > > >
> > > > * MyNamingEnumeration.gatherNodes() adds the wrong federated context
> > > > entries in the result set. It should add the nodes belonging to the
> > > > "initiallyRequestedNode", otherwise in some cases we are adding nodes
> > > from
> > > > two different parents (in other words we are mixing two different
> > > > sub-contexts), which is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > * MyNamingEnumeration.isMyChild() considers entries that are NOT
> > > children
> > > > to the "parent" tree as such - the original code was using
> > "parentTree",
> > > to
> > > > check if a given node is a child to another one, which is wrong. The
> > > > "parentTree" relationship indicates only the physical layout of the
> > tree,
> > > > and NOT the relationship between the sub-contexts and their entries.
> > > Hence
> > > > it considers for instance "java:global" to be a child of
> "java:module"
> > > > which is obviously incorrect. The relationship between a context and
> > the
> > > > bound entries is denoted by the "parent" node. So when listing a
> > context
> > > > isMyChild should rely only on the "parent" node. There is one
> > exception -
> > > > the top level contexts (app, global, etc) which do not have a parent.
> > > >
> > > > * Wrong parentNode is passed as argument to gatherNodes in case we
> are
> > > > listing the context for any "IvmContext != this. When we call
> > > > IvmContext.list(), it looks up the relevant IvmContext and tries to
> > > build a
> > > > NamingEnumeration for its sub-tree. So far so good, but the looked up
> > > > context might be different than the context on which we called
> list().
> > If
> > > > that's the case, the wrong NameNode is passed as "parent" to
> > > gatherNodes()
> > > > and as a result some nodes are not listed.
> > > >
> > > > PS: This issue is relevant for tomee 1.7.x as well. i noticed it does
> > not
> > > > correctly list the naming tree as well. It also does not list the
> > > federated
> > > > contexts which was implemented in  [3].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/88
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-2087
> > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/81
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Svetlin
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to