[jira] [Issue Comment Deleted] (FINERACT-1241) Elastic web hook
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1241?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Manoj updated FINERACT-1241: Comment: was deleted (was: created [https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1478] ) > Elastic web hook > > > Key: FINERACT-1241 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1241 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Manoj >Assignee: Manoj >Priority: Minor > Fix For: 1.5.0 > > > Elastic web hook to push events to elastic search for analytics purpose. > Extend the Fieract hooks to include elastic push feature. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1241) Elastic web hook
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1241?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224456#comment-17224456 ] Manoj commented on FINERACT-1241: - new pull request : [https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1488] , its green > Elastic web hook > > > Key: FINERACT-1241 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1241 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Manoj >Assignee: Manoj >Priority: Minor > Fix For: 1.5.0 > > > Elastic web hook to push events to elastic search for analytics purpose. > Extend the Fieract hooks to include elastic push feature. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1191) fineract-doc
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1191?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224356#comment-17224356 ] Aleksandar Vidakovic commented on FINERACT-1191: [~vorburger] I think this one is done. Would be great if you could review the PR and merge if you agree. Note: I "ported" (to Asciidoc format) the existing documentation (some Markdown files and a HTML document explaining the overall architecture) "as is" with only minor edits to the content (e. g. replaced "Mifos" with "Fineract" where I found it). In a next step I'd start to expand on some of the content we've put in the README (release documentation?), e. g. put content we have currently in Confluence here. We can see later what's needed; will create separate tickets/PRs. > fineract-doc > > > Key: FINERACT-1191 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1191 > Project: Apache Fineract > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Michael Vorburger >Assignee: Aleksandar Vidakovic >Priority: Major > -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Resolved] (FINERACT-1250) AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==> expected: <1> but was: <2>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Aleksandar Vidakovic resolved FINERACT-1250.
Resolution: Fixed
The tests were running twice due to a wrong Travis command line.
> AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> ---
>
> Key: FINERACT-1250
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Aleksandar Vidakovic
>Priority: Major
>
> https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740577217 for
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1465 for FINERACT-1209 failed with:
> {noformat}AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.fail(AssertionUtils.java:55)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.failNotEqual(AssertionUtils.java:62)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:150)
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:542)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.common.AuditHelper.verifyOneAuditOnly(AuditHelper.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.AuditIntegrationTest.auditShouldbeCreated(AuditIntegrationTest.java:82){noformat}
> This seems to be a new problem. I'm not sure if or it could be related to the
> move of the tests in FINERACT-1209... but perhaps they e.g. run in a
> different order now, so there is 1 Audit entry more?
> [~aleks] is this something you would like to look into?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Assigned] (FINERACT-1250) AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==> expected: <1> but was: <2>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Aleksandar Vidakovic reassigned FINERACT-1250:
--
Assignee: Aleksandar Vidakovic
> AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> ---
>
> Key: FINERACT-1250
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Aleksandar Vidakovic
>Priority: Major
>
> https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740577217 for
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1465 for FINERACT-1209 failed with:
> {noformat}AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.fail(AssertionUtils.java:55)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.failNotEqual(AssertionUtils.java:62)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:150)
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:542)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.common.AuditHelper.verifyOneAuditOnly(AuditHelper.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.AuditIntegrationTest.auditShouldbeCreated(AuditIntegrationTest.java:82){noformat}
> This seems to be a new problem. I'm not sure if or it could be related to the
> move of the tests in FINERACT-1209... but perhaps they e.g. run in a
> different order now, so there is 1 Audit entry more?
> [~aleks] is this something you would like to look into?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1209) Integration Tests using new Swagger Client API ("Fineract SDK")
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1209?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224352#comment-17224352
]
Aleksandar Vidakovic commented on FINERACT-1209:
[~vorburger] [~ptuomola] I think this one is ready for review... and to merge
if you agree. Failing tests were related to wrong Travis command line.
> Integration Tests using new Swagger Client API ("Fineract SDK")
> ---
>
> Key: FINERACT-1209
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1209
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: SDK
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Aleksandar Vidakovic
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> Thanks to the progress in FINERACT-1189, I think we're closer than we have
> ever been to do something I have dreamt of :D for a long time... basically
> what we were discussing back in the comments of FINERACT-838, copy/paste:
> {quote}(...) include sample code in the repo building against the generated
> client libraries to test and illustrate their usage. (...) it's still not
> really "tested" at all, of course. We don't know if the generated code is a
> working client. (...) In an ideal world, we should have some sort of
> fineract-client-demo as a small separate project in the git root directory
> (of Apache Fineract core, not separately/outside!) which depends on
> fineract-client, and invokes at least some of the generated APIs. This IMHO
> should always be run, e.g. on Travis CI. We would of course need a "back-end
> server" - the easiest would probably be to run this against the local server
> we're anyway starting for integrationTest, in a separate new Gradle task with
> the appropriate dependencies?{quote}
> Thinking about this again with 2 months distance since writing above, what we
> probably REALLY should do, I don't know if instead of or in addition to a
> separate small new {{fineract-client-demo}}, is have (all?) of our ITs (in
> integrationTest) use the Swagger Client, instead of all those weird hand
> hard-coded *Utils and *Helper classes with RestAssured - that would be so
> much nicer!
> [~aleks] [~ChinmayKulkarni] [~ptuomola] [~manthan]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1250) AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==> expected: <1> but was: <2>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224351#comment-17224351
]
Aleksandar Vidakovic commented on FINERACT-1250:
[~vorburger] I think I found it... the problem was the Travis command line.
There are 2 Gradle commands executed; the first is - I think - supposed to
check that all rules (RAT, Spotless, license headers etc.) are applied and the
second one was executing the integration test. Now that the integration tests
are in their own module and are just defined as "normal" tests they get
actually executed twice, because the first Gradle command also executes all
unit tests (which includes the integration-tests module). I think I've fixed
this by adding a "-x test" to the first command, just to keep the change as
minimal as possible. But I'm sure we don't need these two commands anymore and
could later merge them into one. Just FYI.
> AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> ---
>
> Key: FINERACT-1250
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
>
> https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740577217 for
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1465 for FINERACT-1209 failed with:
> {noformat}AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.fail(AssertionUtils.java:55)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.failNotEqual(AssertionUtils.java:62)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:150)
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:542)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.common.AuditHelper.verifyOneAuditOnly(AuditHelper.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.AuditIntegrationTest.auditShouldbeCreated(AuditIntegrationTest.java:82){noformat}
> This seems to be a new problem. I'm not sure if or it could be related to the
> move of the tests in FINERACT-1209... but perhaps they e.g. run in a
> different order now, so there is 1 Audit entry more?
> [~aleks] is this something you would like to look into?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1250) AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==> expected: <1> but was: <2>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224277#comment-17224277
]
Michael Vorburger commented on FINERACT-1250:
-
> I'll close and re-open it to get a 2nd build
[~aleks] FYI https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740585929 also
failed in the same test, so this is definitely not just flaky but broken in
https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1465...
> AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> ---
>
> Key: FINERACT-1250
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
>
> https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740577217 for
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1465 for FINERACT-1209 failed with:
> {noformat}AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.fail(AssertionUtils.java:55)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.failNotEqual(AssertionUtils.java:62)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:150)
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:542)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.common.AuditHelper.verifyOneAuditOnly(AuditHelper.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.AuditIntegrationTest.auditShouldbeCreated(AuditIntegrationTest.java:82){noformat}
> This seems to be a new problem. I'm not sure if or it could be related to the
> move of the tests in FINERACT-1209... but perhaps they e.g. run in a
> different order now, so there is 1 Audit entry more?
> [~aleks] is this something you would like to look into?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1247) ImageTest failures
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1247?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224276#comment-17224276
]
Michael Vorburger commented on FINERACT-1247:
-
This could be a simple timeout issue - the {{ImageTest}} to remove
{{demo.fineract.dev}} is SLOW.
> ImageTest failures
> --
>
> Key: FINERACT-1247
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1247
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Affects Versions: 1.5.0
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> The (my) new ImageTest introduced in FINERACT-1218 seems to fail on Travis -
> but only sometimes:
> {noformat}> Task :fineract-client:test FAILED
> (...)
> ImageTest > getSmallerSize() FAILED
> org.apache.fineract.client.util.CallFailedRuntimeException at
> ImageTest.java:69
> ImageTest > getBiggerSize() FAILED
> org.apache.fineract.client.util.CallFailedRuntimeException at
> ImageTest.java:76
> ImageTest > getInlineOctetOutput() FAILED
> org.apache.fineract.client.util.CallFailedRuntimeException at
> ImageTest.java:84
> ImageTest > getOctetOutput() FAILED
> org.apache.fineract.client.util.CallFailedRuntimeException at
> ImageTest.java:93
> ImageTest > getAnotherOutput() FAILED
> org.apache.fineract.client.util.CallFailedRuntimeException at
> ImageTest.java:102
> ImageTest > getText() FAILED
> org.apache.fineract.client.util.CallFailedRuntimeException at
> ImageTest.java:110
> ImageTest > getBytes() FAILED
> org.apache.fineract.client.util.CallFailedRuntimeException at
> ImageTest.java:118
> 31 tests completed, 7 failed, 2 skipped{noformat}
> This MAY be due to some intermittent problem on https://www.fineract.dev,
> which those tests currently run against? (But the error logs there don't show
> anything.)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1252) Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x and Retrofit 1.9.0 to current 2.9.0
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224261#comment-17224261
]
Michael Vorburger commented on FINERACT-1252:
-
https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1486
> Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x and Retrofit 1.9.0 to current 2.9.0
> -
>
> Key: FINERACT-1252
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> While I was working on our new {{fineract-client}} which through Retrofit
> uses a current version 4.x of https://square.github.io/okhttp, I've noticed
> that {{fineract-provider}} itself is still stuck on an ancient OkHTTP 2.7.5
> version.
> While client and server COULD be on different versions, it seems to make
> sense to me to align these versions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1252) Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x and Retrofit 1.9.0 to current 2.9.0
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224258#comment-17224258
]
Michael Vorburger commented on FINERACT-1252:
-
This should also upgrade the ancient Retrofit 1.9.0 to current 2.9.0 (used in
Hooks, like OkHTTP).
> Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x and Retrofit 1.9.0 to current 2.9.0
> -
>
> Key: FINERACT-1252
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> While I was working on our new {{fineract-client}} which through Retrofit
> uses a current version 4.x of https://square.github.io/okhttp, I've noticed
> that {{fineract-provider}} itself is still stuck on an ancient OkHTTP 2.7.5
> version.
> While client and server COULD be on different versions, it seems to make
> sense to me to align these versions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Updated] (FINERACT-1252) Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x and Retrofit 1.9.0 to current 2.9.0
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Vorburger updated FINERACT-1252:
Summary: Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x and Retrofit 1.9.0 to
current 2.9.0 (was: Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x)
> Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x and Retrofit 1.9.0 to current 2.9.0
> -
>
> Key: FINERACT-1252
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> While I was working on our new {{fineract-client}} which through Retrofit
> uses a current version 4.x of https://square.github.io/okhttp, I've noticed
> that {{fineract-provider}} itself is still stuck on an ancient OkHTTP 2.7.5
> version.
> While client and server COULD be on different versions, it seems to make
> sense to me to align these versions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Updated] (FINERACT-1252) Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Vorburger updated FINERACT-1252:
Fix Version/s: 1.5.0
> Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x
> -
>
> Key: FINERACT-1252
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> While I was working on our new {{fineract-client}} which through Retrofit
> uses a current version 4.x of https://square.github.io/okhttp, I've noticed
> that {{fineract-provider}} itself is still stuck on an ancient OkHTTP 2.7.5
> version.
> While client and server COULD be on different versions, it seems to make
> sense to me to align these versions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Created] (FINERACT-1252) Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x
Michael Vorburger created FINERACT-1252:
---
Summary: Bump ancient OkHTTP v2.7.5 to current 4.x
Key: FINERACT-1252
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1252
Project: Apache Fineract
Issue Type: Improvement
Reporter: Michael Vorburger
Assignee: Michael Vorburger
While I was working on our new {{fineract-client}} which through Retrofit uses
a current version 4.x of https://square.github.io/okhttp, I've noticed that
{{fineract-provider}} itself is still stuck on an ancient OkHTTP 2.7.5 version.
While client and server COULD be on different versions, it seems to make sense
to me to align these versions.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Created] (FINERACT-1251) Uploaded Document Size is determined and stored wrong
Michael Vorburger created FINERACT-1251:
---
Summary: Uploaded Document Size is determined and stored wrong
Key: FINERACT-1251
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1251
Project: Apache Fineract
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Michael Vorburger
While writing the (new) {{DocumentTest}} working on FINERACT-1218 for
FINERACT-1201, I've noticed that the {{fileSize}} which the
{{DocumentManagementApiResource.createDocument()}} puts into the
{{DocumentCommand}} to hand the
{{DocumentWritePlatformService.createDocument()}} to save in the DB is wrong.
The size of the uploaded document is NOT {{@HeaderParam("Content-Length")
@Parameter(description = "Content-Length")}}.
The same mistake is made in and will have to be fixed in the
{{DocumentManagementApiResource.updateDocument()}} method
The {{DocumentTest}} currently just "compensates" for the currently wrong size.
PS: The {{ImagesApiResource}} has a similar bug, but it's less important there
because the {{fileSize}} is only used to validate that no huge images are
uploaded, and not actually stored in the database, so it doesn't matter that
much there.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-780) HookIntegrationTest is flaky
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-780?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224250#comment-17224250
]
Michael Vorburger commented on FINERACT-780:
PS: The {{HookIntegrationTest}} failures are NOT always "flaky" (arbitrary),
but e.g. in FINERACT-1241 a PR really breaks it.
> HookIntegrationTest is flaky
>
>
> Key: FINERACT-780
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-780
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Mohit Sinha
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.4.0
>
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Our org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.HookIntegrationTest seems to be
> "flaky" and occassionally arbitrary fails.
> This seems to have happened e.g. in
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/557 as well as again in
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/607.
> I suspect it's related to this in the code of that test:
> {code:java}
> // Subject to https://echo-webhook.herokuapp.com being up
> // See
> //
> http://www.jamesward.com/2014/06/11/testing-webhooks-was-a-pain-so-i-fixed-the-glitch
> final String payloadURL =
> "http://echo-webhook.herokuapp.com:80/Z7RXoCBdLSFMDrpn?;;
> this.hookHelper.createHook(payloadURL);
> {code}
> In an ideal world, even an integration test should not depend on an external
> service running on some arbitrary 3rd party website.
> What someone probably could do is to instead start some sort of Echo Server
> written in Java in-process as part of that test. Something like this may
> already exist as a library somewhere, or otherwise it probably wouldn't be
> terribly hard to write it.
> If this happens more often, perhaps just temporarily adding an {{@Igore}} for
> this test would be in order (until someone can do above).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (FINERACT-1250) AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==> expected: <1> but was: <2>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17224249#comment-17224249
]
Michael Vorburger commented on FINERACT-1250:
-
> I'm not sure if or it could be related to the move
FYI why I think it's actually related to the PR is because a trivial other
change like https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1484 actually had a green
build (see https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740541274) where
all ITs passed. So unless it's just "flaky", this does seem to be caused by
that PR.. I'll close and re-open it to get a 2nd build, but I suspect we'll see
it still fail in the same way.
> AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> ---
>
> Key: FINERACT-1250
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
>
> https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740577217 for
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1465 for FINERACT-1209 failed with:
> {noformat}AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
> org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
> expected: <1> but was: <2>
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.fail(AssertionUtils.java:55)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.failNotEqual(AssertionUtils.java:62)
> at
> org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:150)
> at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:542)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.common.AuditHelper.verifyOneAuditOnly(AuditHelper.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.AuditIntegrationTest.auditShouldbeCreated(AuditIntegrationTest.java:82){noformat}
> This seems to be a new problem. I'm not sure if or it could be related to the
> move of the tests in FINERACT-1209... but perhaps they e.g. run in a
> different order now, so there is 1 Audit entry more?
> [~aleks] is this something you would like to look into?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Created] (FINERACT-1250) AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==> expected: <1> but was: <2>
Michael Vorburger created FINERACT-1250:
---
Summary: AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==> expected:
<1> but was: <2>
Key: FINERACT-1250
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1250
Project: Apache Fineract
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Michael Vorburger
https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/fineract/builds/740577217 for
https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/1465 for FINERACT-1209 failed with:
{noformat}AuditIntegrationTest > auditShouldbeCreated() FAILED
org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: More than one audit created ==>
expected: <1> but was: <2>
at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.fail(AssertionUtils.java:55)
at
org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionUtils.failNotEqual(AssertionUtils.java:62)
at
org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:150)
at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:542)
at
org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.common.AuditHelper.verifyOneAuditOnly(AuditHelper.java:74)
at
org.apache.fineract.integrationtests.AuditIntegrationTest.auditShouldbeCreated(AuditIntegrationTest.java:82){noformat}
This seems to be a new problem. I'm not sure if or it could be related to the
move of the tests in FINERACT-1209... but perhaps they e.g. run in a different
order now, so there is 1 Audit entry more?
[~aleks] is this something you would like to look into?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Updated] (FINERACT-1201) Remove copy/paste between FileSystemContentRepository and S3ContentRepository
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1201?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Vorburger updated FINERACT-1201:
Description:
While looking into FINERACT-955, I have found that a lot of the code between
the {{FileSystemContentRepository}} and the {{S3ContentRepository}} appear to
very similar.. historically most likely copy/pasted from one to the other.
There are also some subtle differences e.g. {{FileSystemContentRepository}}
does not seem to invoke
{{ContentRepositoryUtils.validateFileSizeWithinPermissibleRange(documentCommand.getSize(),
fileName);}} like {{S3ContentRepository}}. I suspect that probably was not
intentional?
Before implementing FINERACT-955, I'll attempt to remove this copy/paste and
unify those two implementations of {{ContentRepository}}.
I'll do this in 2 steps: 1. just move some lines, and add some missig lines, to
make them "look" more similar; 2. actually merge their code by refactoring into
a common abstract super classes or utilities for composition.
was:
While looking into FINERACT-955, I have found that a lot of the code between
the {{FileSystemContentRepository}} and the {{S3ContentRepository}} appear to
very similar.. historically most likely copy/pasted from one to the other.
There are also some subtle differences e.g. {{FileSystemContentRepository}}
does not seem to invoke
{{ContentRepositoryUtils.validateFileSizeWithinPermissibleRange(documentCommand.getSize(),
fileName);}} like {{S3ContentRepository}}. I suspect that probably was not
intentional?
Before implementing FINERACT-955, I'll attempt to remove this copy/paste and
unify those two implementations of {{ContentRepository}}.
I'll do this in 2 steps: 1. just move some lines, and add some missig lines, to
make them "look" more similar; 2. actually merge their merge by refactoring
into a common abstract super class.
> Remove copy/paste between FileSystemContentRepository and S3ContentRepository
> -
>
> Key: FINERACT-1201
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1201
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Michael Vorburger
>Assignee: Michael Vorburger
>Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> While looking into FINERACT-955, I have found that a lot of the code between
> the {{FileSystemContentRepository}} and the {{S3ContentRepository}} appear to
> very similar.. historically most likely copy/pasted from one to the other.
> There are also some subtle differences e.g. {{FileSystemContentRepository}}
> does not seem to invoke
> {{ContentRepositoryUtils.validateFileSizeWithinPermissibleRange(documentCommand.getSize(),
> fileName);}} like {{S3ContentRepository}}. I suspect that probably was not
> intentional?
> Before implementing FINERACT-955, I'll attempt to remove this copy/paste and
> unify those two implementations of {{ContentRepository}}.
> I'll do this in 2 steps: 1. just move some lines, and add some missig lines,
> to make them "look" more similar; 2. actually merge their code by refactoring
> into a common abstract super classes or utilities for composition.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
