Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
The default is a crashing runner which throws an exception if its executed. This makes SDK core/examples/... not depend on any implemented runners. On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > +1 to ValidatesRunner. I'd be nice if it were (optionally?) > parameterized by which feature it validates. > > @NeedsRunner is odd, as using a runner is the most natural way to > write many (most) tests, but an annotation should be used to mark the > exception, not the norm. (I'd just assume a runner is available for > all tests, e.g. CoreTests depends on DirectRunner depends on Core). > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Mark Liu > wrote: > > +1 ValidatesRunner > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Kenneth Knowles > > > wrote: > > > >> Nice. I like ValidatesRunner. > >> > >> On Nov 10, 2016 03:39, "Amit Sela" wrote: > >> > >> > How about @ValidatesRunner ? > >> > Seems to complement @NeedsRunner as well. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM Aljoscha Krettek > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > +1 > >> > > > >> > > What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the > >> capability > >> > > matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' > >> doc). > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Huge +1 to this. > >> > > > > >> > > > The two categories I care most about are: > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing > under > >> > > test"; > >> > > > today this is NeedsRunner. > >> > > > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is > >> > > > RunnableOnService. > >> > > > > >> > > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I > think > >> we > >> > > can > >> > > > make good choices, like we already do. > >> > > > > >> > > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a > >> > > pitfall: > >> > > > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not > >> > have a > >> > > > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. > >> > > > > >> > > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to > make > >> > clear > >> > > > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also > want > >> > > > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO > modules. > >> > > > > >> > > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is > aimed at > >> > > case > >> > > > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new > one > >> > > added. > >> > > > > >> > > > * > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2 > >> > VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit > >> > > > > >> > > > Kenn > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >> j...@nanthrax.net > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Mark, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or > >> > > > @RunOnRunner > >> > > > > sound clearer. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Regards > >> > > > > JB > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After > >> > having > >> > > > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a > very > >> > > > >> intuitive > >> > > > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build > >> lightweight > >> > > > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't > have > >> > to > >> > > > run > >> > > > >> on a service. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone > >> have > >> > > > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is > tight > >> to > >> > > > >> runner. > >> > > > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> - TestsWithRunners > >> > > > >> - RunnerExecutable > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> Any thoughts? > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> Thanks, > >> > > > >> Mark > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> > > > > jbono...@apache.org > >> > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > >> > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
+1 to ValidatesRunner. I'd be nice if it were (optionally?) parameterized by which feature it validates. @NeedsRunner is odd, as using a runner is the most natural way to write many (most) tests, but an annotation should be used to mark the exception, not the norm. (I'd just assume a runner is available for all tests, e.g. CoreTests depends on DirectRunner depends on Core). On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Mark Liu wrote: > +1 ValidatesRunner > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Kenneth Knowles > wrote: > >> Nice. I like ValidatesRunner. >> >> On Nov 10, 2016 03:39, "Amit Sela" wrote: >> >> > How about @ValidatesRunner ? >> > Seems to complement @NeedsRunner as well. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM Aljoscha Krettek >> > wrote: >> > >> > > +1 >> > > >> > > What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the >> capability >> > > matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' >> doc). >> > > >> > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Huge +1 to this. >> > > > >> > > > The two categories I care most about are: >> > > > >> > > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under >> > > test"; >> > > > today this is NeedsRunner. >> > > > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is >> > > > RunnableOnService. >> > > > >> > > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think >> we >> > > can >> > > > make good choices, like we already do. >> > > > >> > > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a >> > > pitfall: >> > > > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not >> > have a >> > > > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. >> > > > >> > > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make >> > clear >> > > > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want >> > > > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. >> > > > >> > > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at >> > > case >> > > > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one >> > > added. >> > > > >> > > > * >> > > > >> > > > >> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2 >> > VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit >> > > > >> > > > Kenn >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> j...@nanthrax.net >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi Mark, >> > > > > >> > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. >> > > > > >> > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or >> > > > @RunOnRunner >> > > > > sound clearer. >> > > > > >> > > > > Regards >> > > > > JB >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After >> > having >> > > > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very >> > > > >> intuitive >> > > > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build >> lightweight >> > > > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have >> > to >> > > > run >> > > > >> on a service. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone >> have >> > > > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight >> to >> > > > >> runner. >> > > > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - TestsWithRunners >> > > > >> - RunnerExecutable >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Any thoughts? >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Thanks, >> > > > >> Mark >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > > > > jbono...@apache.org >> > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
+1 ValidatesRunner On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Nice. I like ValidatesRunner. > > On Nov 10, 2016 03:39, "Amit Sela" wrote: > > > How about @ValidatesRunner ? > > Seems to complement @NeedsRunner as well. > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM Aljoscha Krettek > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the > capability > > > matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' > doc). > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Huge +1 to this. > > > > > > > > The two categories I care most about are: > > > > > > > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under > > > test"; > > > > today this is NeedsRunner. > > > > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is > > > > RunnableOnService. > > > > > > > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think > we > > > can > > > > make good choices, like we already do. > > > > > > > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a > > > pitfall: > > > > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not > > have a > > > > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. > > > > > > > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make > > clear > > > > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want > > > > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. > > > > > > > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at > > > case > > > > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one > > > added. > > > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2 > > VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit > > > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > > > > > > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or > > > > @RunOnRunner > > > > > sound clearer. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After > > having > > > > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very > > > > >> intuitive > > > > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build > lightweight > > > > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have > > to > > > > run > > > > >> on a service. > > > > >> > > > > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone > have > > > > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight > to > > > > >> runner. > > > > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: > > > > >> > > > > >> - TestsWithRunners > > > > >> - RunnerExecutable > > > > >> > > > > >> Any thoughts? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Mark > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
Nice. I like ValidatesRunner. On Nov 10, 2016 03:39, "Amit Sela" wrote: > How about @ValidatesRunner ? > Seems to complement @NeedsRunner as well. > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM Aljoscha Krettek > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the capability > > matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' doc). > > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles > > wrote: > > > > > Huge +1 to this. > > > > > > The two categories I care most about are: > > > > > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under > > test"; > > > today this is NeedsRunner. > > > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is > > > RunnableOnService. > > > > > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think we > > can > > > make good choices, like we already do. > > > > > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a > > pitfall: > > > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not > have a > > > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. > > > > > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make > clear > > > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want > > > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. > > > > > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at > > case > > > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one > > added. > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2 > VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit > > > > > > Kenn > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > > > > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or > > > @RunOnRunner > > > > sound clearer. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > >> > > > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After > having > > > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very > > > >> intuitive > > > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight > > > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have > to > > > run > > > >> on a service. > > > >> > > > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have > > > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to > > > >> runner. > > > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: > > > >> > > > >> - TestsWithRunners > > > >> - RunnerExecutable > > > >> > > > >> Any thoughts? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Mark > > > >> > > > >> > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
How about @ValidatesRunner ? Seems to complement @NeedsRunner as well. On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:47 AM Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > +1 > > What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the capability > matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' doc). > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles > wrote: > > > Huge +1 to this. > > > > The two categories I care most about are: > > > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under > test"; > > today this is NeedsRunner. > > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is > > RunnableOnService. > > > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think we > can > > make good choices, like we already do. > > > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a > pitfall: > > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not have a > > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. > > > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make clear > > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want > > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. > > > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at > case > > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one > added. > > > > * > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit > > > > Kenn > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or > > @RunOnRunner > > > sound clearer. > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having > > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very > > >> intuitive > > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight > > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to > > run > > >> on a service. > > >> > > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have > > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to > > >> runner. > > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: > > >> > > >> - TestsWithRunners > > >> - RunnerExecutable > > >> > > >> Any thoughts? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Mark > > >> > > >> > > > -- > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > jbono...@apache.org > > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
+1 What I would really like to see is automatic derivation of the capability matrix from an extended Runner Test Suite. (As outlined in Thomas' doc). On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 at 21:42 Kenneth Knowles wrote: > Huge +1 to this. > > The two categories I care most about are: > > 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under test"; > today this is NeedsRunner. > 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is > RunnableOnService. > > Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think we can > make good choices, like we already do. > > The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a pitfall: > what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not have a > clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. > > So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make clear > that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want > RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. > > See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at case > 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one added. > > * > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit > > Kenn > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > Hi Mark, > > > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or > @RunOnRunner > > sound clearer. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having > >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very > >> intuitive > >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight > >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to > run > >> on a service. > >> > >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have > >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to > >> runner. > >> Currently, I have two names in my head: > >> > >> - TestsWithRunners > >> - RunnerExecutable > >> > >> Any thoughts? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Mark > >> > >> > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
Huge +1 to this. The two categories I care most about are: 1. Tests that need a runner, but are testing the other "thing under test"; today this is NeedsRunner. 2. Tests that are intended to test a runner; today this is RunnableOnService. Actually the lines are not necessary clear between them, but I think we can make good choices, like we already do. The idea of two categories with a common superclass actually has a pitfall: what if a test is put in the superclass category, when it does not have a clear meaning? And also, I don't have any good ideas for names. So I think just replacing RunnableOnService with RunnerTest to make clear that it is there just to test the runner is good. We might also want RunnerIntegrationTest extends NeedsRunner to use in the IO modules. See also Thomas's doc on capability matrix testing* which is aimed at case 2. Those tests should all have a category from the doc, or a new one added. * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fICxq32t9yWn9qXhmT07xpclHeHX2VlUyVtpi2WzzGM/edit Kenn On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or @RunOnRunner > sound clearer. > > Regards > JB > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very >> intuitive >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to run >> on a service. >> >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to >> runner. >> Currently, I have two names in my head: >> >> - TestsWithRunners >> - RunnerExecutable >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
I think it's important to tease apart what why we're trying to mark tests. Generally, nearly all tests should run on all runners. However, there are some exceptions, namely. 1) Some runners don't support all features (especially at the start). 2) Some tests are incompatible with distributed runners (e.g. rely on in-process IO fakes) @RunnableOnService has also been used to mark tests that *should* be run on the service, as it is prohibitively expensive to run all tests on all runners. We should also have the notion of a comprehensive suite of tests a runner should pass to support the full model. This would exclude many tests that are of unmodified composite transforms (that hopefully could run on any runner, but the incremental benefit would be small.) On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Generally speaking, I agree. > > As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or @RunOnRunner > sound clearer. > > Regards > JB > > > On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having >> discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very >> intuitive >> name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight >> pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to run >> on a service. >> >> So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have >> similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to >> runner. >> Currently, I have two names in my head: >> >> - TestsWithRunners >> - RunnerExecutable >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Change "RunnableOnService" To A More Intuitive Name
Hi Mark, Generally speaking, I agree. As RunnableOnService extends NeedsRunner, @TestsWithRunner or @RunOnRunner sound clearer. Regards JB On 11/09/2016 09:00 PM, Mark Liu wrote: Hi all, I'm working on building RunnableOnService in Python SDK. After having discussions with folks, "RunnableOnService" looks like not a very intuitive name for those unit tests that require runners and build lightweight pipelines to test specific components. Especially, they don't have to run on a service. So I want to raise this idea to the community and see if anyone have similar thoughts. Maybe we can come up with a name this is tight to runner. Currently, I have two names in my head: - TestsWithRunners - RunnerExecutable Any thoughts? Thanks, Mark -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
