You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Patrick Rhomberg <pr...@apache.org> on 2018/10/12 22:32:45 UTC
[Discuss] Where should simple classes for tests belong?
Hello, all!
There are a number of classes that require some number of "toy" classes
as part of their testing framework, e.g., to be used as custom data
containers. Many of these classes involve testing or use of the `deploy
jar` command, and so are packaged into jars for this purpose.
In an effort to promote good coding habits and, as importantly, consensus
throughout this community and our codebase, I would like to ask which of
these are considered the preferred method to maintain these additional
classes.
I realize a priori that none of these options will be applicable in all
cases, but am curious of how the prioritization of these options are
ordered among you all.
-- Class definition --
For definition of the classes consumed, we observe all of the following in
the Geode codebase.
Option C-1: Toy classes are defined as a proper class in a reasonable
package.
-- suboption (a): The class is defined in the module in which it is
consumed, as a resource. [1]
-- suboption (b): The class is defined in the module in which it is
consumed, as a neighboring file. [2]
-- suboption (c): The class is defined in geode-dunit or geode-junit. [3]
Option C-2: Toy classes are defined as inner classes of the test class.
[4]
Option C-3: Sufficiently small toy classes are defined as raw String
fields in the test class that consumed it and is compiled by the test JVM
via the JavaCompiler class. [5]
-- Resource exposure --
For those tests that require classes placed in Jars for use in the `deploy
jar` command, we observe the following in the Geode codebase:
Option J-1: Jars are a resource and are built or downloaded as necessary
during the build steps, before test execution. [6]
Option J-2: Sufficiently small classes that are defined as raw String
fields in the test class that consumes it (C-3 above) are packaged into
resources via the JarBuilder class. [7]
I look forward to hearing your opinions.
Imagination is Change.
~Patrick Rhomberg
Examples:
[1]
geode-core_test/resources:org.apache.geode.management.internal.deployment.ConcreteExtendsAbstractExtendsFunctionAdapter.java
is found by the FunctionScannerTest to be a user-defined function.
[2]
geode-core_distributedTest:org.apache.geode.internal.cache.SerializableMonth
defines a simple DataSerializable containing an int for the month, to be
consumed by *.MonthBasedPartitionResolver
in PRCustomPartitioningDistributedTest.
[3] geode-junit_main:org.apache.geode.cache.query.transaction.Person
defines a simple DataSerilazable container class for a String name and int
age.
[4]
geode-core_distributedTest:java.org.apache.geode.internal.statistics.StatisticsDistributedTest$PubSubStats
is consumed by its parent class
[5]
geode-assembly_acceptanceTest:org.apache.geode.management.internal.cli.commands.PutCommandWithJsonTest
defines a Customer class in a raw string in the test's @Before method.
[6] See our own consumption of geode-dependencies.jar et al via the
StartMemberUtils.java, or our historic consumption of tools.jar
[7] See again [5] or other uses of the JarBuilder class.
Re: [Discuss] Where should simple classes for tests belong?
Posted by Udo Kohlmeyer <ud...@apache.org>.
+1 to what Jens & Jinmei & Kirk have said. It is far easier to have a
local definition of the "toy" classes.
Yes, it makes the code base "larger" and most good editors would flag it
as duplicate code, BUT it is about localization and making sure that one
can easily see what classes are part of a test and what its definition is.
In addition to this, having a set of "toy" definition lying around
means, that as more tests use these classes, the test scenario
inevitably starts seeping into the toy classes, eventually causing
copies of these classes to be made in any case, as the original does not
meet the requirement of the new test.
--Udo
On 10/15/18 09:40, Jinmei Liao wrote:
> +1 to what Jens said. The test jar is very specific to the test itself.
> Does not need to be in the src at all. It should disappear when the test
> finishes. There is no need for it to be in the build process at all.
> Producing it inside the test itself is a much cleaner way for the
> developer/maintainer of the code to know what the intent of the test/code
> is for rather having to hunt around to find out where the test code lives.
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> For testing functionality like 'gfsh deploy' one has to be aware of
>> classloading issues. Specifically, when writing dunit tests, classes are
>> compiled from java resource files so that they are guaranteed not to be on
>> the classpath during testing. This is less of an issue for gfsh acceptance
>> tests where there is more control over the classpath and what is launched
>> as part of the test.
>>
>> For the dunit deploy testing scenario (and any similar) I would prefer to
>> see the java test resource as exactly that - a package-equivalent resource
>> file that is explicitly compiled as part of the test. It makes the test
>> clearer and doesn't leave anyone wondering where/how resources are built or
>> injected.
>>
>> --Jens
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I usually create a private static inner class and keep it as small as
>>> possible at the end of the test class that uses it. Some of these these
>>> such as MyCacheListener can be replaced by spy(CacheListener.class) and I
>>> always try to convert these where possible.
>>>
>>> If it's a simple class that only tests in one package will use (like a
>>> custom AssertJ class that nothing outside that package will use) then I
>>> make it package-protected and stick it in the same package and srcSet as
>>> the tests that will use it.
>>>
>>> I think something like MonthBasedPartitionResolver is simple enough that
>> it
>>> should exist within the same src set and in the same package as the test
>> or
>>> a few tests that use it. And if another test in some other src set or in
>>> another package needs something similar, then too bad, that other test
>>> should create its own simple small class that is similar. This sort of
>>> class does NOT belong in a src/main of some module like geode-dunit.
>> Better
>>> yet make it a static inner class in every test that uses it. I know some
>>> people object to this, but here's why...
>>>
>>> If I want to modify one test that uses MonthBasedPartitionResolver and
>> this
>>> modification involves changing MonthBasedPartitionResolver (which
>> remember
>>> it's a simple class) then if each test has its own copy I won't risk
>>> breaking other tests. When I'm fixing up, cleaning up and refactoring
>>> tests, the biggest nightmares I run into are shared utility classes such
>>> that if I try to cleanup one test, I can't -- I have to clean up
>>> potentially dozens of tests because they linked some some stupid utility
>>> class because "code sharing" is great. MonthBasedPartitionResolver is a
>>> small example, there are plenty of other examples that are true
>>> monstrosities.
>>>
>>> Sharing code between tests is NOT great unless you devise a Rule or
>> custom
>>> AssertJ Assertion that is truly very reusable across many tests -- and
>> only
>>> in this case it belongs in geode-junit or geode-dunit where it should
>> live
>>> in a src/main and there should be tests for it under src/test or
>>> src/integrationTest. I also highly recommend that you keep shared testing
>>> objects like this small in scope with a single high-level responsibility.
>>> And please, never create something that simply creates a new improved API
>>> so that you don't have to use the Geode API -- this just promotes leaving
>>> crappy product APIs in place without changing them because by using some
>>> fancy testing API, we don't feel the pain that Users experience with the
>>> product APIs.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Patrick Rhomberg <pr...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello, all!
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of classes that require some number of "toy"
>> classes
>>>> as part of their testing framework, e.g., to be used as custom data
>>>> containers. Many of these classes involve testing or use of the
>> `deploy
>>>> jar` command, and so are packaged into jars for this purpose.
>>>> In an effort to promote good coding habits and, as importantly,
>>> consensus
>>>> throughout this community and our codebase, I would like to ask which
>> of
>>>> these are considered the preferred method to maintain these additional
>>>> classes.
>>>> I realize a priori that none of these options will be applicable in
>> all
>>>> cases, but am curious of how the prioritization of these options are
>>>> ordered among you all.
>>>>
>>>> -- Class definition --
>>>> For definition of the classes consumed, we observe all of the following
>>> in
>>>> the Geode codebase.
>>>>
>>>> Option C-1: Toy classes are defined as a proper class in a reasonable
>>>> package.
>>>> -- suboption (a): The class is defined in the module in which it is
>>>> consumed, as a resource. [1]
>>>> -- suboption (b): The class is defined in the module in which it is
>>>> consumed, as a neighboring file. [2]
>>>> -- suboption (c): The class is defined in geode-dunit or geode-junit.
>>> [3]
>>>> Option C-2: Toy classes are defined as inner classes of the test
>> class.
>>>> [4]
>>>>
>>>> Option C-3: Sufficiently small toy classes are defined as raw String
>>>> fields in the test class that consumed it and is compiled by the test
>> JVM
>>>> via the JavaCompiler class. [5]
>>>>
>>>> -- Resource exposure --
>>>> For those tests that require classes placed in Jars for use in the
>>> `deploy
>>>> jar` command, we observe the following in the Geode codebase:
>>>>
>>>> Option J-1: Jars are a resource and are built or downloaded as
>> necessary
>>>> during the build steps, before test execution. [6]
>>>>
>>>> Option J-2: Sufficiently small classes that are defined as raw String
>>>> fields in the test class that consumes it (C-3 above) are packaged into
>>>> resources via the JarBuilder class. [7]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to hearing your opinions.
>>>>
>>>> Imagination is Change.
>>>> ~Patrick Rhomberg
>>>>
>>>> Examples:
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>> geode-core_test/resources:org.apache.geode.management.internal.deployment.
>>>> ConcreteExtendsAbstractExtendsFunctionAdapter.java
>>>> is found by the FunctionScannerTest to be a user-defined function.
>>>> [2]
>>>> geode-core_distributedTest:org.apache.geode.internal.
>>>> cache.SerializableMonth
>>>> defines a simple DataSerializable containing an int for the month, to
>> be
>>>> consumed by *.MonthBasedPartitionResolver
>>>> in PRCustomPartitioningDistributedTest.
>>>> [3] geode-junit_main:org.apache.geode.cache.query.transaction.Person
>>>> defines a simple DataSerilazable container class for a String name and
>>> int
>>>> age.
>>>> [4]
>>>> geode-core_distributedTest:java.org.apache.geode.internal.statistics.
>>>> StatisticsDistributedTest$PubSubStats
>>>> is consumed by its parent class
>>>> [5]
>>>> geode-assembly_acceptanceTest:org.apache.geode.management.
>>>> internal.cli.commands.PutCommandWithJsonTest
>>>> defines a Customer class in a raw string in the test's @Before method.
>>>> [6] See our own consumption of geode-dependencies.jar et al via the
>>>> StartMemberUtils.java, or our historic consumption of tools.jar
>>>> [7] See again [5] or other uses of the JarBuilder class.
>>>>
>
Re: [Discuss] Where should simple classes for tests belong?
Posted by Jinmei Liao <ji...@pivotal.io>.
+1 to what Jens said. The test jar is very specific to the test itself.
Does not need to be in the src at all. It should disappear when the test
finishes. There is no need for it to be in the build process at all.
Producing it inside the test itself is a much cleaner way for the
developer/maintainer of the code to know what the intent of the test/code
is for rather having to hunt around to find out where the test code lives.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> For testing functionality like 'gfsh deploy' one has to be aware of
> classloading issues. Specifically, when writing dunit tests, classes are
> compiled from java resource files so that they are guaranteed not to be on
> the classpath during testing. This is less of an issue for gfsh acceptance
> tests where there is more control over the classpath and what is launched
> as part of the test.
>
> For the dunit deploy testing scenario (and any similar) I would prefer to
> see the java test resource as exactly that - a package-equivalent resource
> file that is explicitly compiled as part of the test. It makes the test
> clearer and doesn't leave anyone wondering where/how resources are built or
> injected.
>
> --Jens
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I usually create a private static inner class and keep it as small as
> > possible at the end of the test class that uses it. Some of these these
> > such as MyCacheListener can be replaced by spy(CacheListener.class) and I
> > always try to convert these where possible.
> >
> > If it's a simple class that only tests in one package will use (like a
> > custom AssertJ class that nothing outside that package will use) then I
> > make it package-protected and stick it in the same package and srcSet as
> > the tests that will use it.
> >
> > I think something like MonthBasedPartitionResolver is simple enough that
> it
> > should exist within the same src set and in the same package as the test
> or
> > a few tests that use it. And if another test in some other src set or in
> > another package needs something similar, then too bad, that other test
> > should create its own simple small class that is similar. This sort of
> > class does NOT belong in a src/main of some module like geode-dunit.
> Better
> > yet make it a static inner class in every test that uses it. I know some
> > people object to this, but here's why...
> >
> > If I want to modify one test that uses MonthBasedPartitionResolver and
> this
> > modification involves changing MonthBasedPartitionResolver (which
> remember
> > it's a simple class) then if each test has its own copy I won't risk
> > breaking other tests. When I'm fixing up, cleaning up and refactoring
> > tests, the biggest nightmares I run into are shared utility classes such
> > that if I try to cleanup one test, I can't -- I have to clean up
> > potentially dozens of tests because they linked some some stupid utility
> > class because "code sharing" is great. MonthBasedPartitionResolver is a
> > small example, there are plenty of other examples that are true
> > monstrosities.
> >
> > Sharing code between tests is NOT great unless you devise a Rule or
> custom
> > AssertJ Assertion that is truly very reusable across many tests -- and
> only
> > in this case it belongs in geode-junit or geode-dunit where it should
> live
> > in a src/main and there should be tests for it under src/test or
> > src/integrationTest. I also highly recommend that you keep shared testing
> > objects like this small in scope with a single high-level responsibility.
> > And please, never create something that simply creates a new improved API
> > so that you don't have to use the Geode API -- this just promotes leaving
> > crappy product APIs in place without changing them because by using some
> > fancy testing API, we don't feel the pain that Users experience with the
> > product APIs.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Patrick Rhomberg <pr...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, all!
> > >
> > > There are a number of classes that require some number of "toy"
> classes
> > > as part of their testing framework, e.g., to be used as custom data
> > > containers. Many of these classes involve testing or use of the
> `deploy
> > > jar` command, and so are packaged into jars for this purpose.
> > > In an effort to promote good coding habits and, as importantly,
> > consensus
> > > throughout this community and our codebase, I would like to ask which
> of
> > > these are considered the preferred method to maintain these additional
> > > classes.
> > > I realize a priori that none of these options will be applicable in
> all
> > > cases, but am curious of how the prioritization of these options are
> > > ordered among you all.
> > >
> > > -- Class definition --
> > > For definition of the classes consumed, we observe all of the following
> > in
> > > the Geode codebase.
> > >
> > > Option C-1: Toy classes are defined as a proper class in a reasonable
> > > package.
> > > -- suboption (a): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> > > consumed, as a resource. [1]
> > > -- suboption (b): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> > > consumed, as a neighboring file. [2]
> > > -- suboption (c): The class is defined in geode-dunit or geode-junit.
> > [3]
> > >
> > > Option C-2: Toy classes are defined as inner classes of the test
> class.
> > > [4]
> > >
> > > Option C-3: Sufficiently small toy classes are defined as raw String
> > > fields in the test class that consumed it and is compiled by the test
> JVM
> > > via the JavaCompiler class. [5]
> > >
> > > -- Resource exposure --
> > > For those tests that require classes placed in Jars for use in the
> > `deploy
> > > jar` command, we observe the following in the Geode codebase:
> > >
> > > Option J-1: Jars are a resource and are built or downloaded as
> necessary
> > > during the build steps, before test execution. [6]
> > >
> > > Option J-2: Sufficiently small classes that are defined as raw String
> > > fields in the test class that consumes it (C-3 above) are packaged into
> > > resources via the JarBuilder class. [7]
> > >
> > >
> > > I look forward to hearing your opinions.
> > >
> > > Imagination is Change.
> > > ~Patrick Rhomberg
> > >
> > > Examples:
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> geode-core_test/resources:org.apache.geode.management.internal.deployment.
> > > ConcreteExtendsAbstractExtendsFunctionAdapter.java
> > > is found by the FunctionScannerTest to be a user-defined function.
> > > [2]
> > > geode-core_distributedTest:org.apache.geode.internal.
> > > cache.SerializableMonth
> > > defines a simple DataSerializable containing an int for the month, to
> be
> > > consumed by *.MonthBasedPartitionResolver
> > > in PRCustomPartitioningDistributedTest.
> > > [3] geode-junit_main:org.apache.geode.cache.query.transaction.Person
> > > defines a simple DataSerilazable container class for a String name and
> > int
> > > age.
> > > [4]
> > > geode-core_distributedTest:java.org.apache.geode.internal.statistics.
> > > StatisticsDistributedTest$PubSubStats
> > > is consumed by its parent class
> > > [5]
> > > geode-assembly_acceptanceTest:org.apache.geode.management.
> > > internal.cli.commands.PutCommandWithJsonTest
> > > defines a Customer class in a raw string in the test's @Before method.
> > > [6] See our own consumption of geode-dependencies.jar et al via the
> > > StartMemberUtils.java, or our historic consumption of tools.jar
> > > [7] See again [5] or other uses of the JarBuilder class.
> > >
> >
>
--
Cheers
Jinmei
Re: [Discuss] Where should simple classes for tests belong?
Posted by Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>.
For testing functionality like 'gfsh deploy' one has to be aware of
classloading issues. Specifically, when writing dunit tests, classes are
compiled from java resource files so that they are guaranteed not to be on
the classpath during testing. This is less of an issue for gfsh acceptance
tests where there is more control over the classpath and what is launched
as part of the test.
For the dunit deploy testing scenario (and any similar) I would prefer to
see the java test resource as exactly that - a package-equivalent resource
file that is explicitly compiled as part of the test. It makes the test
clearer and doesn't leave anyone wondering where/how resources are built or
injected.
--Jens
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:22 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> I usually create a private static inner class and keep it as small as
> possible at the end of the test class that uses it. Some of these these
> such as MyCacheListener can be replaced by spy(CacheListener.class) and I
> always try to convert these where possible.
>
> If it's a simple class that only tests in one package will use (like a
> custom AssertJ class that nothing outside that package will use) then I
> make it package-protected and stick it in the same package and srcSet as
> the tests that will use it.
>
> I think something like MonthBasedPartitionResolver is simple enough that it
> should exist within the same src set and in the same package as the test or
> a few tests that use it. And if another test in some other src set or in
> another package needs something similar, then too bad, that other test
> should create its own simple small class that is similar. This sort of
> class does NOT belong in a src/main of some module like geode-dunit. Better
> yet make it a static inner class in every test that uses it. I know some
> people object to this, but here's why...
>
> If I want to modify one test that uses MonthBasedPartitionResolver and this
> modification involves changing MonthBasedPartitionResolver (which remember
> it's a simple class) then if each test has its own copy I won't risk
> breaking other tests. When I'm fixing up, cleaning up and refactoring
> tests, the biggest nightmares I run into are shared utility classes such
> that if I try to cleanup one test, I can't -- I have to clean up
> potentially dozens of tests because they linked some some stupid utility
> class because "code sharing" is great. MonthBasedPartitionResolver is a
> small example, there are plenty of other examples that are true
> monstrosities.
>
> Sharing code between tests is NOT great unless you devise a Rule or custom
> AssertJ Assertion that is truly very reusable across many tests -- and only
> in this case it belongs in geode-junit or geode-dunit where it should live
> in a src/main and there should be tests for it under src/test or
> src/integrationTest. I also highly recommend that you keep shared testing
> objects like this small in scope with a single high-level responsibility.
> And please, never create something that simply creates a new improved API
> so that you don't have to use the Geode API -- this just promotes leaving
> crappy product APIs in place without changing them because by using some
> fancy testing API, we don't feel the pain that Users experience with the
> product APIs.
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Patrick Rhomberg <pr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, all!
> >
> > There are a number of classes that require some number of "toy" classes
> > as part of their testing framework, e.g., to be used as custom data
> > containers. Many of these classes involve testing or use of the `deploy
> > jar` command, and so are packaged into jars for this purpose.
> > In an effort to promote good coding habits and, as importantly,
> consensus
> > throughout this community and our codebase, I would like to ask which of
> > these are considered the preferred method to maintain these additional
> > classes.
> > I realize a priori that none of these options will be applicable in all
> > cases, but am curious of how the prioritization of these options are
> > ordered among you all.
> >
> > -- Class definition --
> > For definition of the classes consumed, we observe all of the following
> in
> > the Geode codebase.
> >
> > Option C-1: Toy classes are defined as a proper class in a reasonable
> > package.
> > -- suboption (a): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> > consumed, as a resource. [1]
> > -- suboption (b): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> > consumed, as a neighboring file. [2]
> > -- suboption (c): The class is defined in geode-dunit or geode-junit.
> [3]
> >
> > Option C-2: Toy classes are defined as inner classes of the test class.
> > [4]
> >
> > Option C-3: Sufficiently small toy classes are defined as raw String
> > fields in the test class that consumed it and is compiled by the test JVM
> > via the JavaCompiler class. [5]
> >
> > -- Resource exposure --
> > For those tests that require classes placed in Jars for use in the
> `deploy
> > jar` command, we observe the following in the Geode codebase:
> >
> > Option J-1: Jars are a resource and are built or downloaded as necessary
> > during the build steps, before test execution. [6]
> >
> > Option J-2: Sufficiently small classes that are defined as raw String
> > fields in the test class that consumes it (C-3 above) are packaged into
> > resources via the JarBuilder class. [7]
> >
> >
> > I look forward to hearing your opinions.
> >
> > Imagination is Change.
> > ~Patrick Rhomberg
> >
> > Examples:
> > [1]
> >
> geode-core_test/resources:org.apache.geode.management.internal.deployment.
> > ConcreteExtendsAbstractExtendsFunctionAdapter.java
> > is found by the FunctionScannerTest to be a user-defined function.
> > [2]
> > geode-core_distributedTest:org.apache.geode.internal.
> > cache.SerializableMonth
> > defines a simple DataSerializable containing an int for the month, to be
> > consumed by *.MonthBasedPartitionResolver
> > in PRCustomPartitioningDistributedTest.
> > [3] geode-junit_main:org.apache.geode.cache.query.transaction.Person
> > defines a simple DataSerilazable container class for a String name and
> int
> > age.
> > [4]
> > geode-core_distributedTest:java.org.apache.geode.internal.statistics.
> > StatisticsDistributedTest$PubSubStats
> > is consumed by its parent class
> > [5]
> > geode-assembly_acceptanceTest:org.apache.geode.management.
> > internal.cli.commands.PutCommandWithJsonTest
> > defines a Customer class in a raw string in the test's @Before method.
> > [6] See our own consumption of geode-dependencies.jar et al via the
> > StartMemberUtils.java, or our historic consumption of tools.jar
> > [7] See again [5] or other uses of the JarBuilder class.
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] Where should simple classes for tests belong?
Posted by Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org>.
I usually create a private static inner class and keep it as small as
possible at the end of the test class that uses it. Some of these these
such as MyCacheListener can be replaced by spy(CacheListener.class) and I
always try to convert these where possible.
If it's a simple class that only tests in one package will use (like a
custom AssertJ class that nothing outside that package will use) then I
make it package-protected and stick it in the same package and srcSet as
the tests that will use it.
I think something like MonthBasedPartitionResolver is simple enough that it
should exist within the same src set and in the same package as the test or
a few tests that use it. And if another test in some other src set or in
another package needs something similar, then too bad, that other test
should create its own simple small class that is similar. This sort of
class does NOT belong in a src/main of some module like geode-dunit. Better
yet make it a static inner class in every test that uses it. I know some
people object to this, but here's why...
If I want to modify one test that uses MonthBasedPartitionResolver and this
modification involves changing MonthBasedPartitionResolver (which remember
it's a simple class) then if each test has its own copy I won't risk
breaking other tests. When I'm fixing up, cleaning up and refactoring
tests, the biggest nightmares I run into are shared utility classes such
that if I try to cleanup one test, I can't -- I have to clean up
potentially dozens of tests because they linked some some stupid utility
class because "code sharing" is great. MonthBasedPartitionResolver is a
small example, there are plenty of other examples that are true
monstrosities.
Sharing code between tests is NOT great unless you devise a Rule or custom
AssertJ Assertion that is truly very reusable across many tests -- and only
in this case it belongs in geode-junit or geode-dunit where it should live
in a src/main and there should be tests for it under src/test or
src/integrationTest. I also highly recommend that you keep shared testing
objects like this small in scope with a single high-level responsibility.
And please, never create something that simply creates a new improved API
so that you don't have to use the Geode API -- this just promotes leaving
crappy product APIs in place without changing them because by using some
fancy testing API, we don't feel the pain that Users experience with the
product APIs.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Patrick Rhomberg <pr...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hello, all!
>
> There are a number of classes that require some number of "toy" classes
> as part of their testing framework, e.g., to be used as custom data
> containers. Many of these classes involve testing or use of the `deploy
> jar` command, and so are packaged into jars for this purpose.
> In an effort to promote good coding habits and, as importantly, consensus
> throughout this community and our codebase, I would like to ask which of
> these are considered the preferred method to maintain these additional
> classes.
> I realize a priori that none of these options will be applicable in all
> cases, but am curious of how the prioritization of these options are
> ordered among you all.
>
> -- Class definition --
> For definition of the classes consumed, we observe all of the following in
> the Geode codebase.
>
> Option C-1: Toy classes are defined as a proper class in a reasonable
> package.
> -- suboption (a): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> consumed, as a resource. [1]
> -- suboption (b): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> consumed, as a neighboring file. [2]
> -- suboption (c): The class is defined in geode-dunit or geode-junit. [3]
>
> Option C-2: Toy classes are defined as inner classes of the test class.
> [4]
>
> Option C-3: Sufficiently small toy classes are defined as raw String
> fields in the test class that consumed it and is compiled by the test JVM
> via the JavaCompiler class. [5]
>
> -- Resource exposure --
> For those tests that require classes placed in Jars for use in the `deploy
> jar` command, we observe the following in the Geode codebase:
>
> Option J-1: Jars are a resource and are built or downloaded as necessary
> during the build steps, before test execution. [6]
>
> Option J-2: Sufficiently small classes that are defined as raw String
> fields in the test class that consumes it (C-3 above) are packaged into
> resources via the JarBuilder class. [7]
>
>
> I look forward to hearing your opinions.
>
> Imagination is Change.
> ~Patrick Rhomberg
>
> Examples:
> [1]
> geode-core_test/resources:org.apache.geode.management.internal.deployment.
> ConcreteExtendsAbstractExtendsFunctionAdapter.java
> is found by the FunctionScannerTest to be a user-defined function.
> [2]
> geode-core_distributedTest:org.apache.geode.internal.
> cache.SerializableMonth
> defines a simple DataSerializable containing an int for the month, to be
> consumed by *.MonthBasedPartitionResolver
> in PRCustomPartitioningDistributedTest.
> [3] geode-junit_main:org.apache.geode.cache.query.transaction.Person
> defines a simple DataSerilazable container class for a String name and int
> age.
> [4]
> geode-core_distributedTest:java.org.apache.geode.internal.statistics.
> StatisticsDistributedTest$PubSubStats
> is consumed by its parent class
> [5]
> geode-assembly_acceptanceTest:org.apache.geode.management.
> internal.cli.commands.PutCommandWithJsonTest
> defines a Customer class in a raw string in the test's @Before method.
> [6] See our own consumption of geode-dependencies.jar et al via the
> StartMemberUtils.java, or our historic consumption of tools.jar
> [7] See again [5] or other uses of the JarBuilder class.
>
Re: [Discuss] Where should simple classes for tests belong?
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
What I think is important is that any java code should be in a Java source
file that is compiled as part of a build. Don't put java source or bytecode
in as resource or as a constant.
For testing deploy jar I thought what Helena and I ended up doing in
StartServerCommandDUnitTest worked pretty well - build a jar from a class
on the classpath:
File jar = temporaryFolder.newFile(jarName);
new ClassBuilder().writeJarFromClass(RunOutOfMemoryFunction.class, jar);
-Dan
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:32 PM Patrick Rhomberg <pr...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hello, all!
>
> There are a number of classes that require some number of "toy" classes
> as part of their testing framework, e.g., to be used as custom data
> containers. Many of these classes involve testing or use of the `deploy
> jar` command, and so are packaged into jars for this purpose.
> In an effort to promote good coding habits and, as importantly, consensus
> throughout this community and our codebase, I would like to ask which of
> these are considered the preferred method to maintain these additional
> classes.
> I realize a priori that none of these options will be applicable in all
> cases, but am curious of how the prioritization of these options are
> ordered among you all.
>
> -- Class definition --
> For definition of the classes consumed, we observe all of the following in
> the Geode codebase.
>
> Option C-1: Toy classes are defined as a proper class in a reasonable
> package.
> -- suboption (a): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> consumed, as a resource. [1]
> -- suboption (b): The class is defined in the module in which it is
> consumed, as a neighboring file. [2]
> -- suboption (c): The class is defined in geode-dunit or geode-junit. [3]
>
> Option C-2: Toy classes are defined as inner classes of the test class.
> [4]
>
> Option C-3: Sufficiently small toy classes are defined as raw String
> fields in the test class that consumed it and is compiled by the test JVM
> via the JavaCompiler class. [5]
>
> -- Resource exposure --
> For those tests that require classes placed in Jars for use in the `deploy
> jar` command, we observe the following in the Geode codebase:
>
> Option J-1: Jars are a resource and are built or downloaded as necessary
> during the build steps, before test execution. [6]
>
> Option J-2: Sufficiently small classes that are defined as raw String
> fields in the test class that consumes it (C-3 above) are packaged into
> resources via the JarBuilder class. [7]
>
>
> I look forward to hearing your opinions.
>
> Imagination is Change.
> ~Patrick Rhomberg
>
> Examples:
> [1]
>
> geode-core_test/resources:org.apache.geode.management.internal.deployment.ConcreteExtendsAbstractExtendsFunctionAdapter.java
> is found by the FunctionScannerTest to be a user-defined function.
> [2]
>
> geode-core_distributedTest:org.apache.geode.internal.cache.SerializableMonth
> defines a simple DataSerializable containing an int for the month, to be
> consumed by *.MonthBasedPartitionResolver
> in PRCustomPartitioningDistributedTest.
> [3] geode-junit_main:org.apache.geode.cache.query.transaction.Person
> defines a simple DataSerilazable container class for a String name and int
> age.
> [4]
>
> geode-core_distributedTest:java.org.apache.geode.internal.statistics.StatisticsDistributedTest$PubSubStats
> is consumed by its parent class
> [5]
>
> geode-assembly_acceptanceTest:org.apache.geode.management.internal.cli.commands.PutCommandWithJsonTest
> defines a Customer class in a raw string in the test's @Before method.
> [6] See our own consumption of geode-dependencies.jar et al via the
> StartMemberUtils.java, or our historic consumption of tools.jar
> [7] See again [5] or other uses of the JarBuilder class.
>