You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@olingo.apache.org by "Amend, Christian" <ch...@sap.com> on 2016/08/11 14:06:44 UTC
Cleaning up V4 fit tests
Hi all,
I would like to clean up our tests and remove duplicates in the FIT module. Especially the ones using the static server content since the idea of "full integration tests" in my opinion is the usage of client and server library and not the testing the client with a static server content.
WDYT? If there are no objections I will go ahead with the refactoring. I will go with small steps so we can easily revert changes.
Best Regards,
Christian
RE: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
Posted by "Amend, Christian" <ch...@sap.com>.
Hi,
I had a look at the ext/pojogen-maven-plugin module.
There we have three integration tests. In the src/it folder we have
exchangeMail
exchangeMailNoBasePkg
and finally v4Sample which is another service but tests the same thing as exchangeMail namely the construction of a V4 service which contains a base package.
I would like to delete the v4Sample test. Are there any objections or points that I have missed?
Best Regards,
Christian
-----Original Message-----
From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgrosso@apache.org]
Sent: Freitag, 12. August 2016 10:27
To: dev@olingo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
On 12/08/2016 09:36, Amend, Christian wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> yes I will definitely keep the parts which are not yet covered by the Olingo server part like delta handling.
> I am only talking about the duplicates like basic CRUD scenarios.
>
> Also do you know why there are 3 different proxy services in the fit module? These are the three I am talking about:
> org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.demo
> org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.opentype
> org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.staticservice
>
> If they test the same things with different service we might be able to clean this up. WDYT?
Not sure: it seems to me that they are testing different things: demo
and staticservice are quite general, opentype checks open type support.
Hence, I don't believe that consolidating would be trivial, in this case.
Regards.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgrosso@apache.org]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 11. August 2016 16:11
> To: dev@olingo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
>
> On 11/08/2016 16:06, Amend, Christian wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to clean up our tests and remove duplicates in the FIT module. Especially the ones using the static server content since the idea of "full integration tests" in my opinion is the usage of client and server library and not the testing the client with a static server content.
>>
>> WDYT? If there are no objections I will go ahead with the refactoring. I will go with small steps so we can easily revert changes.
> AFAIR the static services were provided at the time where Olingo Server
> V4 had almost no features: now that things have changed, I don't see any
> problems in removing the static parts which have dynamic counterparts.
>
> Please keep instead any static service with features not currently
> covered (or completely covered) by Olingo Server V4.
>
> Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC,
CXF Committer, OpenJPA Committer, PonyMail PPMC
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 12/08/2016 09:36, Amend, Christian wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> yes I will definitely keep the parts which are not yet covered by the Olingo server part like delta handling.
> I am only talking about the duplicates like basic CRUD scenarios.
>
> Also do you know why there are 3 different proxy services in the fit module? These are the three I am talking about:
> org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.demo
> org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.opentype
> org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.staticservice
>
> If they test the same things with different service we might be able to clean this up. WDYT?
Not sure: it seems to me that they are testing different things: demo
and staticservice are quite general, opentype checks open type support.
Hence, I don't believe that consolidating would be trivial, in this case.
Regards.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francesco Chicchiricc� [mailto:ilgrosso@apache.org]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 11. August 2016 16:11
> To: dev@olingo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
>
> On 11/08/2016 16:06, Amend, Christian wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to clean up our tests and remove duplicates in the FIT module. Especially the ones using the static server content since the idea of "full integration tests" in my opinion is the usage of client and server library and not the testing the client with a static server content.
>>
>> WDYT? If there are no objections I will go ahead with the refactoring. I will go with small steps so we can easily revert changes.
> AFAIR the static services were provided at the time where Olingo Server
> V4 had almost no features: now that things have changed, I don't see any
> problems in removing the static parts which have dynamic counterparts.
>
> Please keep instead any static service with features not currently
> covered (or completely covered) by Olingo Server V4.
>
> Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiricc�
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC,
CXF Committer, OpenJPA Committer, PonyMail PPMC
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
RE: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
Posted by "Amend, Christian" <ch...@sap.com>.
Hi Francesco,
yes I will definitely keep the parts which are not yet covered by the Olingo server part like delta handling.
I am only talking about the duplicates like basic CRUD scenarios.
Also do you know why there are 3 different proxy services in the fit module? These are the three I am talking about:
org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.demo
org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.opentype
org.apache.olingo.fit.proxy.staticservice
If they test the same things with different service we might be able to clean this up. WDYT?
Best Regards,
Christian
-----Original Message-----
From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgrosso@apache.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. August 2016 16:11
To: dev@olingo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
On 11/08/2016 16:06, Amend, Christian wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to clean up our tests and remove duplicates in the FIT module. Especially the ones using the static server content since the idea of "full integration tests" in my opinion is the usage of client and server library and not the testing the client with a static server content.
>
> WDYT? If there are no objections I will go ahead with the refactoring. I will go with small steps so we can easily revert changes.
AFAIR the static services were provided at the time where Olingo Server
V4 had almost no features: now that things have changed, I don't see any
problems in removing the static parts which have dynamic counterparts.
Please keep instead any static service with features not currently
covered (or completely covered) by Olingo Server V4.
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC,
CXF Committer, OpenJPA Committer, PonyMail PPMC
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Cleaning up V4 fit tests
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 11/08/2016 16:06, Amend, Christian wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to clean up our tests and remove duplicates in the FIT module. Especially the ones using the static server content since the idea of "full integration tests" in my opinion is the usage of client and server library and not the testing the client with a static server content.
>
> WDYT? If there are no objections I will go ahead with the refactoring. I will go with small steps so we can easily revert changes.
AFAIR the static services were provided at the time where Olingo Server
V4 had almost no features: now that things have changed, I don't see any
problems in removing the static parts which have dynamic counterparts.
Please keep instead any static service with features not currently
covered (or completely covered) by Olingo Server V4.
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiricc�
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC,
CXF Committer, OpenJPA Committer, PonyMail PPMC
http://home.apache.org/~ilgrosso/