Re: [classlib] jetty based tests

Tue, 23 May 2006 05:33:35 -0700 

Paulex Yang wrote:

Mikhail Loenko wrote:
Can jetty send back for example a response consisting of the following 4 bytes: 

0x00 0x01 0x02 0x03

Sure, but if you need control of such level,  a mocked SocketListener 
may be necessary,  check out the codes below, the client socket will 
print 0-3, respectively.


public class JettyTest {
   public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
       HttpServer server = new HttpServer();
       SocketListener listener = new MockSocketListener();
       listener.setPort(80);
       server.addListener(listener);
       server.start();

       Socket socket = new Socket(InetAddress.getByName("localhost"), 
80);

       InputStream is = socket.getInputStream();
       int c;
       while ((c = is.read()) != -1) {
           System.out.println(c);
       }
       socket.close();
       server.stop();
   }
}

class MockSocketListener extends SocketListener {
   public void handleConnection(Socket socket) throws IOException {
       OutputStream os = socket.getOutputStream();
       os.write(new byte[]{0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03});
       socket.close();
   }
}

I'm sure Jetty has more potential, I'm a newbie of Jetty myself :-)


We all are.

Best regards,
George




?

Thanks,
Mikhail

2006/5/23, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

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]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]























					Reply via email to