You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2017/04/03 00:56:51 UTC
[DISCUSS] Smoke tests
We always had the examples on Artemis playing a double thingy... being
both an educational and documentational resource, and that has also
saved us a few times from making changes that would invalidate
configurations and the manual.
However, to replicate ARTEMIS-1089 now, I couldn't easily produce a
testcase for it.. Instead I wrote an example like code (using the same
maven framework, and everything else).. but this time it doesn't have
the purpose of documentation.
for that reason I am creating a new folder ./smoke under examples, and
I'm adding a readme.md as part of it.
I'm mainly adding this discuss thread to suggest other people to do
the same in certain cases where a testcase is hard to reproduce a
production life scenario. Testcases are still the preferable way to
replicate bugs.. but in certain cases this will help us eat our own
dog food. (it certainly helped me).
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
It should still be part of the release. It's a valid test anyoene can run.
We just make it clear.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:32 AM Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Good idea Clebert. We probably don't want to include these smoke tests as
> part of the release, so can you ensure you don't include it in the examples
> pom :)
>
> Cheers
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > We always had the examples on Artemis playing a double thingy... being
> > both an educational and documentational resource, and that has also
> > saved us a few times from making changes that would invalidate
> > configurations and the manual.
> >
> >
> > However, to replicate ARTEMIS-1089 now, I couldn't easily produce a
> > testcase for it.. Instead I wrote an example like code (using the same
> > maven framework, and everything else).. but this time it doesn't have
> > the purpose of documentation.
> >
> >
> > for that reason I am creating a new folder ./smoke under examples, and
> > I'm adding a readme.md as part of it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm mainly adding this discuss thread to suggest other people to do
> > the same in certain cases where a testcase is hard to reproduce a
> > production life scenario. Testcases are still the preferable way to
> > replicate bugs.. but in certain cases this will help us eat our own
> > dog food. (it certainly helped me).
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/1171
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> OK let's move under tests/smoke in a subsequent patch (this PR has a lot of
> code change and will probably result in conflicts if we hold out).
>
> Cheers.
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> We can move under tests/smoke.
>>
>> But we can do that later. Please merge the current one.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I have a folder smoke. A Readme saying it's intended as test on a real
>> > life system.
>> >
>> >
>> > If y don't like it there and care that much. Please merge my current PR
>> > and change it any way you like.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that
>> it
>> > shouldn't be part of the built released examples.
>> >
>> > Unless of course it's written up as a proper example with a proper readme
>> > with context and is appropriately named like all the other examples.
>> What
>> > I don't want to do is confuse users by having integration tests mixed in
>> > with examples aimed for end users. It's just going to cause confusion.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM, nigro_franz <ni...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Agree! It is a good idea indeed!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
>> > > nabble.com/DISCUSS-Smoke-tests-tp4724485p4724492.html
>> > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>> >
>> --
>> Clebert Suconic
>>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
OK let's move under tests/smoke in a subsequent patch (this PR has a lot of
code change and will probably result in conflicts if we hold out).
Cheers.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We can move under tests/smoke.
>
> But we can do that later. Please merge the current one.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have a folder smoke. A Readme saying it's intended as test on a real
> > life system.
> >
> >
> > If y don't like it there and care that much. Please merge my current PR
> > and change it any way you like.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that
> it
> > shouldn't be part of the built released examples.
> >
> > Unless of course it's written up as a proper example with a proper readme
> > with context and is appropriately named like all the other examples.
> What
> > I don't want to do is confuse users by having integration tests mixed in
> > with examples aimed for end users. It's just going to cause confusion.
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM, nigro_franz <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Agree! It is a good idea indeed!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > > nabble.com/DISCUSS-Smoke-tests-tp4724485p4724492.html
> > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
> >
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
We can move under tests/smoke.
But we can do that later. Please merge the current one.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have a folder smoke. A Readme saying it's intended as test on a real
> life system.
>
>
> If y don't like it there and care that much. Please merge my current PR
> and change it any way you like.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that it
> shouldn't be part of the built released examples.
>
> Unless of course it's written up as a proper example with a proper readme
> with context and is appropriately named like all the other examples. What
> I don't want to do is confuse users by having integration tests mixed in
> with examples aimed for end users. It's just going to cause confusion.
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM, nigro_franz <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agree! It is a good idea indeed!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > nabble.com/DISCUSS-Smoke-tests-tp4724485p4724492.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I have a folder smoke. A Readme saying it's intended as test on a real
life system.
If y don't like it there and care that much. Please merge my current PR
and change it any way you like.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that it
> shouldn't be part of the built released examples.
>
> Unless of course it's written up as a proper example with a proper readme
> with context and is appropriately named like all the other examples. What
> I don't want to do is confuse users by having integration tests mixed in
> with examples aimed for end users. It's just going to cause confusion.
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM, nigro_franz <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agree! It is a good idea indeed!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> > nabble.com/DISCUSS-Smoke-tests-tp4724485p4724492.html
> > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
--
Clebert Suconic
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that it
shouldn't be part of the built released examples.
Unless of course it's written up as a proper example with a proper readme
with context and is appropriately named like all the other examples. What
I don't want to do is confuse users by having integration tests mixed in
with examples aimed for end users. It's just going to cause confusion.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM, nigro_franz <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree! It is a good idea indeed!
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/DISCUSS-Smoke-tests-tp4724485p4724492.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by nigro_franz <ni...@gmail.com>.
Agree! It is a good idea indeed!
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Smoke-tests-tp4724485p4724492.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS] Smoke tests
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Good idea Clebert. We probably don't want to include these smoke tests as
part of the release, so can you ensure you don't include it in the examples
pom :)
Cheers
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We always had the examples on Artemis playing a double thingy... being
> both an educational and documentational resource, and that has also
> saved us a few times from making changes that would invalidate
> configurations and the manual.
>
>
> However, to replicate ARTEMIS-1089 now, I couldn't easily produce a
> testcase for it.. Instead I wrote an example like code (using the same
> maven framework, and everything else).. but this time it doesn't have
> the purpose of documentation.
>
>
> for that reason I am creating a new folder ./smoke under examples, and
> I'm adding a readme.md as part of it.
>
>
>
> I'm mainly adding this discuss thread to suggest other people to do
> the same in certain cases where a testcase is hard to reproduce a
> production life scenario. Testcases are still the preferable way to
> replicate bugs.. but in certain cases this will help us eat our own
> dog food. (it certainly helped me).
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>