Ok, so I’m going to leave the MP TCK to run default on the MP flavour and add the other ones with a specific profile.
> On 11 Dec 2018, at 13:12, Jonathan Gallimore <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I was thinking the same. We should probably also extend > arquillian/arquillian-tomee-tests to also run on the microprofile flavor, > but of course that increases the build time too. I'd be in favor of some > profiles to help us pick what to build and test to optimize our cycles. > > Jon > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:57 PM Roberto Cortez <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I’ve finally started the work to add MP support to TomEE Plus (and then >> Plume). >> >> Is not really that hard. My only question here is about adding separate >> runs of the MP TCK to each TomEE flavour: >> >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/270/commits/2c51e9cd4e5c1419e5d2f1f311c5d900eb58cbcb >> < >> https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/270/commits/2c51e9cd4e5c1419e5d2f1f311c5d900eb58cbcb >>> >> >> As is, MP TCK takes almost 1 hour (depending on the box). We may be able >> to cut that significantly with Bruno's work around executing Arquillian >> tests in parallel. Another option would be to drop the fork execution and >> do it in a single VM. Unfortunately, from my experience trying to do that, >> some tests do not cleanup properly and then fail, so having the test fork >> was the only reliable way to execute them properly. >> >> By adding the other TomEE flavours in the TCK run, we are potentially >> looking in a 2 hour increase of the test build. Maybe we can leave this >> optional in a profile to run with the other flavours and leave just TomEE >> MP as the default container to run the TCK. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> Roberto
