FWIW, In Apache Felix Karaf, I've just switched to always use maven
bundles with the depends-maven-plugin.
This allow not putting any version in the test cases and make sure all
versions are made available locally using maven dependencies.
I've removed references to profiles for two reasons:
* profiles are not released, which bind the tests to a given
revision of the profile
* profiles may have references to other profiles without any version
specified, which lead to the resolution of these profiles to kick in
At the end, I just use a bunch of
mavenBundles(groupId, artifactId)
with the following definition:
public static MavenArtifactProvisionOption mavenBundle(String
groupId, String artifactId) {
return
CoreOptions.mavenBundle().groupId(groupId).artifactId(artifactId).versionAsInProject();
}
This makes sure points 1 to 4 are handled gracefully using maven
dependencies and without any external lookup.
2009/5/11 Alin Dreghiciu <adreghi...@gmail.com>:
> Lately I saw that the "biggest" complain about pax Exam is about the fact
> that it takes a long time to run the tests. So, the main scope of this thread
> is just to gather ideas on how we can speed it up.
> The parts where Pax Exam/Pax Runner spends time I can think of are:
> 1. Scanning. Depending on what type of scanner and on what type of url the
> scanner is working the scanning process can be slow.
> 2. Resolving maven artifacts without an exact version. If you are using the
> mvn: url handler without a version the handler will have to go to each
> available repository and determine what versions are available in that
> repository in order to determine the highest version = the version to be
> used. This can be a slow process.
> 3. Resolving profiles without a version. Profiles are transformed to
> composite scanner + maven resolver. So, in case that no version is specified
> same reasoning applies as above.
> 4. Download bundles to be provisioned (result of scanning) into Pax Runner
> cache folder. Based on source and size can be slow.
> 5. Every test is run in its own instance of Pax Runner in order to avoid side
> effects.
> 6. Pax Runner starts a new Process for each test. When launching the target
> platform Pax Runner will start it in a new process.
>
> For some time now I'm thinking on doing some parts in parallel in Pax Runner,
> but not yet time to implement it. This will mean that points 1,2,3,4 from
> above may take less time as they are done in parallel not sequential as
> currently. The downside (but I can live with it without any problems :) is
> that now download feedback will be shown.
> For item 2 and 3 the simplest solution is to specify an exact version. Beside
> an exact version another improvement is to have the maven artifacts in your
> local maven repository. So, if you are using maven for build it would be easy
> to add the necessary artifacts to your dependencies. Same goes for profiles
> and you can find an example in Apache Felix Karaf on how to do that.
> Regarding item 6 Toni is working on an test container for felix PAXEXAM-79. I
> also just added a new feature to Pax Runner that will start the target
> framework in the same process PAXRUNNER-250. I used the new in process
> executor of Pax Runner as a POC (does not play very well with Pax Exam) and
> the improvements I got was around 300 ms (empirical observation of logged
> times). So, I would say that starting the target framework in the the same
> process will not be a very big improvement. And if compared the improvements
> to the side effects of starting more frameworks many times in the same
> process, I would not go for it. To not talk about the fact that supporting
> versions beside the latest is not a trivial job.
> The biggest improvement I see is about not starting the container for each
> test but start them for groups of tests that share the same configuration.
> What I'm thinking of is to change the default behavior that starts a test per
> test method, to first determine which tests (in the same test class) share
> the same configuration and then start the test container per configuration
> and run the tests. Your mileage can vary but if for example you have 10 tests
> and one configuration the time it takes to run the tests can dramatically go
> down. Not to talk about 100 tests ;)
> More, we should allow the user to override this behavior by means of an
> annotation on method/class level that specifies that the tests should be run
> in their own instance.
> WDYT?
> --
> Alin Dreghiciu
> Software Developer - Looking for new projects!
> My profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alindreghiciu
> My blog: http://adreghiciu.blogspot.com
> http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open Participation
> Software.
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - Domain Driven Development.
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general@lists.ops4j.org
> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@lists.ops4j.org
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
