Re: [classlib] jetty based tests

[Paulex Yang]

Stepan Mishura wrote:
On 5/23/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:

Hi, Stepan,

"With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
demonstrates the possible way."

Shall we write a mock http server for each case?  It takes lots of
reduplicate efforts and results in many mock http server classes in the
end.


No we shouldn't write a mock http server for each case (I mean that we 
need
not implement http protocol each time). 
But we still need to implement http protocol sometimes. That's what we 
can leverage from current product such as Jetty.
In "HARMONY-164 version" mock server
is an instance of class that extends Thread class. The mock server is
started before running test and by default is just listens for incoming
connection. A test has access to server's instance and may configure it
response (I didn't implemented but it is also possible to save request 
to be
verified). There is no http protocol implementation.

In fact, for many regular tests, jetty works fine.

And I also agree that for negative tests and some other special tests
which
jetty could not satisfy ,  we should use mock http server instead.


So we have to develop mock server anyway. And the mock server can be used
for other ('positive') tests. Right? Then why we have to use jetty?

If I understand correctly, the positive tests needs understand the http 
protocol, doesn't it?

BTW, I just checked the Jetty's JavaDoc quickly, and found that the 
HttpContext can set customized ResourceHandlers, so that I can see some 
possibility to provide negative test by Jetty easily. For example, we 
can define a standard negative test context as path "/mockerror", and 
set a MockErrorResourceHandler for this context, which outputs negative 
result to client, and the mocked ResourceHandler should only need to 
override handle() method.

Thanks,
Stepan.

What's your opnion?

Thanks.


On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi George, Tim
>
> I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> 1) Configuring
> As I understood we say that the server is 'embedded' when we can
> start/stop
> it within Ant without additional configuration steps. And all we 
need to
> do
> is just download required jars. Right?
>
> What about Eclipse users?
>
> 2) Time to run test suite
> May be it is hard to estimate but anyway - will the test suite run 
slow
> down
> if we'll use jetty instead of mock objects? How much?
>
> 3) Testing
> Quoting Tim from 'local server thread': "There is no way to force a
server
> to send you a chunked response using regular HTTP headers, so in this
case
> the server and client have an understanding that when the client asks
for
> a
> particular resource the server will send it back in chunks."
>
> With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
> demonstrates the possible way. Also are we going to create negative
tests,
> for example, for broken server response? I think yes. Can jetty server
be
> used for negative testing?
>
> See other comments below
>
> On 5/22/06, George Harley wrote:
> >
> > Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > On 5/19/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > >> <snip>
> > >> > I'm OK only if we separate tests with Jetty from common test
suite
> > >> run.
> > >>
> > >> Why?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because each external dependency complicates 'normal' test 
suite run
(
> I
> > > don't want to face with situation when to run Harmony test suite I
> > > have to
> > > configure and run 20 different external servers even they are easy
> > > configurable). As far as I remember we agreed to use mock 
objects -
so
> > > let's
> > > use them! For example, in this case there is no need in jetty
server.
> > >
> > > I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer to separate 
such
> > > tests.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stepan.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Stepan,
> >
> > Just seen this note and think that my previous append on the "Re: 
svn
> > commit: r407752" thread sums up my thoughts. Allow me to quote 
myself:
> >
> > <paste>
> > Jetty or equivalent is a good basis for such local server stubs. 
It is
> > fast, it is lightweight,
>
>
> Fast and lightweight as what?
> I saw sometimes ago java server that has jar size 4k. And
> jetty-6.0.0beta6.jar is 423k size.
>
>
> > it can be started and stopped very simply from
> > within Ant (so that it only runs for the duration of a specified 
batch
> > of unit tests) and may also be completely controlled from Java test
code
> > so that we can configure its behaviour for any test case from within
> > that test case.
>
>
> Good.
>
> It's architecture means that we do not have to run it as
> > a complete web server but can stub out any aspect of its runtime
> > behaviour we wish in order to suit the purposes of the test(s).
>
>
> What about 'chunked response'? Can a testcase force jetty server to 
send
> it
> a chunked response?
>
> I don't really understand why such network tests making use of a 
small,
> > embedded server running locally would need to be considered as 
outside
> > of the "normal test flow".
> > </paste>
>
>
> Because I consider adding jetty server as precedent for adding other
> dependencies to the "normal test flow". I believe that "normal test
flow"
> should be fast and lightweight as much as possible. Each additional
> dependency or configuration step adds a brick(even it light) to
> developer's
> large. As the result classlib test suite may become very slow and hard
to
> configure. All I want is to understand - do we really need jetty 
server
> inside it.
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> We are not talking about an external server here and we are not 
talking
> > about developers having to carry out complex configuration 
manoeuvres
> > when running the tests. That is something that nobody wants. The
> > motivation here is purely to get more of the java.net tests out 
of the
> > "excludes" sin bin.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > George
> >
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >> Tim
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> > >>
> > >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Middleware Products Division
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
Andrew Zhang
China Software Development Lab, IBM






--
Paulex Yang
China Software Development Lab
IBM



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]