Re: [core] move or add integration tests to myfaces 2.1.x (now trunk)

[Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

The reasons I put the integration tests module as a submodule directly
into myfaces core was that

1) if you checkout core, you get the whole integration-testing stuff
too (like in every maven-plugin project where the integration-tests
are in src/it/)
2) the sub-module can be added via profile and thus has no impact on
normal builds and the release procedure (b/c it does not need to be
released)
3) it's very easy to run a build and execute the integration-tests
(just one maven command)
4) in your IDE, the integration-test webapps will automatically be
runnable (without any further configuration) and thus be easy to debug

Unfortunately, this solution does not fix the problem of running some
integration-tests for multiple versions (as you guys pointed out). We
(I) need to look into that, but I would really like to keep this stuff
as a submodule of core.

Regards,
Jakob

2011/7/29 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
> imo we should keep it simple.
> #1 it should be as simple as possible to execute the tests
> #2 tests for the jsf api should be executed with the first possible version
> as well as "all" later versions (e.g. 2.0.2 -> 2.1.0+ -> 2.2.0+ ...).
> a solution which meets both will get my +1
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
> 2011/7/29 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I think there are many ways to do it. For example, you can play with
>> source paths and maven profiles. For example the following code is
>> valid:
>>
>>  <profiles>
>>    <profile>
>>      <id>tests-jsf-21</id>
>>      <activation>
>>        <property>
>>          <name>jsf</name>
>>          <value>21</value>
>>        </property>
>>      </activation>
>>      <build>
>>        <plugins>
>>          <plugin>
>>            <artifactId>maven-war-plugin</artifactId>
>>            <configuration>
>>              <webResources>
>>                <resource>
>>                  <directory>src/main/webapp21</directory>
>>                </resource>
>>              </webResources>
>>            </configuration>
>>          </plugin>
>>        </plugins>
>>      </build>
>>    </profile>
>>
>> You can include source, resource, or webappp directories based on a
>> profile.
>>
>> We can do trick about run in for jsf 2.0, create an specific task for
>> hudson and "playing" with the profiles. Note we don't need to generate
>> any artifacts or even release them. The only thing we need is run them
>> periodically.
>>
>> The problem about have the code in different locations is the same we
>> had with shared module: to compile one we need compile the other one.
>> That's other reason why I'm proposing move everything instead keep two
>> copies.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo
>>
>> 2011/7/29 Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>:
>> > @jakob: +1
>> > regards,
>> > gerhard
>> >
>> > http://www.irian.at
>> >
>> > Your JSF powerhouse -
>> > JSF Consulting, Development and
>> > Courses in English and German
>> >
>> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/7/29 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I would like to do it exactly like we did it in MyFaces-Test, however
>> >> not exactly like you're proposing. As you said, MyFaces-Test keeps the
>> >> most code in the 1.2 module and the 2.0 module just takes what it
>> >> needs. But what you're proposing is to move all integration-tests to
>> >> 2.1 and also run it with 2.0 in some kind of way..
>> >>
>> >> I would like to have the 2.0 integration-tests really in the 2.0
>> >> branch. If some of them (or as you pointed out: most of them) also
>> >> apply to the 2.1 branch, the 2.1 branch should re-use them dynamically
>> >> and not the other way round.
>> >>
>> >> Thus it would be like this: 2.0 branch provides all 2.0 applicable
>> >> tests, 2.1 branch re-uses the tests which also apply for 2.1 and adds
>> >> some 2.1 specific ones.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Jakob
>> >>
>> >> 2011/7/28 Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi
>> >> >
>> >> > Some weeks ago a new module for integration test was added. See.
>> >> >
>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3217
>> >> >
>> >> > The code proposed was committed on 2.0.x branch. In the following
>> >> > mail
>> >> > we'll discuss if we should move this to current trunk (2.1.x) or
>> >> > create and maintain two copies: one in 2.0.x and the other one in
>> >> > 2.1.x (trunk).
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree that both branches are still used a lot and are being
>> >> > maintained actively. But I think maintain two branches of the same
>> >> > testing code seems to be an unnecessary burden. I think we can put
>> >> > this in just one place an make it run with 2.0. / 2.1 with just some
>> >> > maven configuration.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note 2.0.x and 2.1.x are very similar. In practice, every time we
>> >> > found an issue in 2.1.x, the same patch is applied to 2.0.x too. So
>> >> > it
>> >> > is not necessary to run the integration tests for 2.0.x branch
>> >> > because
>> >> > in practice when we run it against 2.1.x, we are taking into account
>> >> > 2.0.x, as long as the changes be commited on 2.0.x too.
>> >> >
>> >> > In few words, put this on trunk does not mean it will not run against
>> >> > 2.0 !!!!. A "light" way to deal with this kind of problem is take a
>> >> > look at myfaces tests project. It has two modules: 1.2 and 2.0, and
>> >> > 2.0 just "take what it needs" from 1.2 module and that's it. This
>> >> > reduce the burden to the minimum.
>> >> >
>> >> > regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Leonardo Uribe
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jakob Korherr
>> >>
>> >> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
>> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
>> >> work: http://www.irian.at
>> >
>> >
>
>



-- 
Jakob Korherr

blog: http://www.jakobk.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
work: http://www.irian.at