Hi Andrew,
> I volunteer to work on excluded tests in luni module, most of which
are
> dependent on external servers(http server, socks proxy and etc.).
Great news - go ahead! :)
What are you going to use as a substitute for the remote socks proxy?
Regards,
2006/8/1, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi folks,
>
> I volunteer to work on excluded tests in luni module, most of which
are
> dependent on external servers(http server, socks proxy and etc.).
>
> As we discussed some months earlier, we'd integrate Jetty to Harmony
test
> framework for eliminating external http server, but seems no more
progress.
>
> Any volunteer to do this job? :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi George, Paulex,
> >
> > Thanks for your answers. As a preliminary result - your convinced me
and
> > I'm
> > going to be volunteer to evaluate jetty integration to classlib test
> > suite.
> >
> > Do anybody work on integrating jetty http server to move net
tests out
of
> > exclude list?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stepan.
> >
> > On 5/23/06, George Harley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Stepan Mishura 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?
> > >
> > > Hi Stepan,
> > >
> > > In addition to be being start-able, stop-able and configurable
from
Ant
> > > and XML config files, Jetty can also be embedded into the Java
code
of a
> > > test case or test suite. Configuration, starting and stopping are
all
> > > possible. Eclipse users should not be disadvantaged.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Depends on configuration. Configure and start the server in the
setup()
> > > of a JUnit TesCase (and stopping the server in the teardown())
would
> > > obviously be slower than doing the equivalent in a JUnit TestSetup
> > > descendent. Start up is a lot less than half a second on my
machine.
> > >
> > > Is there some performance benchmark for tests that is at risk
here ?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Yes. You can send back any error.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not sure of your point here. Is there some test file footprint
benchmark
> > > that is at risk here ? If there is a better, faster, more
lightweight
> > > server that would suit our purposes then let's hear about it so
that
we
> > > can investigate whether or not it may be used with our network
tests.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> 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?
> > >
> > > Yes. The API provides options to do this. Chunks are encoded as
per
> > > RFC2616.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > George
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
>
>
--
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel Middleware Product Division
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
