You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@syncope.apache.org by "Andrei Shakirin (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/01/29 11:17:12 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (SYNCOPE-231) Using Standard JAX-RS API in
Syncope (Introducing Apache CXF WS Stack)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-231?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13565247#comment-13565247 ]
Andrei Shakirin commented on SYNCOPE-231:
-----------------------------------------
Hi Francesco,
> Andrei, I guess you are referring to this discussion [1].
Correct.
>However, I have the following concerns:
> 1. the 1_0_X branch has the same test that's working flawlessly with JDK 1.6 and 1.7: why? Is this due to the modification made to make tests re-runnable?
The same test works even in trunk under 1.6 and under some other conditions, but is it reliable way to write integration tests? Basically it SHOULDN'T work anywhere and runs successfully only occasionally, see [1].
Problem is that some tests can be easily broken by change absolutely not related with the test itself, like it happens with Task Service implementation (see jira attachment).
I already have seen the same effect for Notification object [2].
> 2. does it make sense to change something in the core only to have easier and more reliable tests?
I don't see it as only test related problem. If user configures and uses H2 DB, is there guarantee that it cannot happens during normal project using as well?
> 3. I think it will not be so straightforward to make all necessary adjustments to content.xml in order to cope with new id generation
Could you elaborate this? Which issues are you expecting? Do you see other ways to fix the problem?
Regards,
Andrei.
[1] http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/Question-Problem-with-test-UsertTestITCase-issueSYNCOPE279-tt5712389.html
[2] http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/Persistence-id-generation-strategy-TABLE-vs-AUTO-td5711813.html
> Using Standard JAX-RS API in Syncope (Introducing Apache CXF WS Stack)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SYNCOPE-231
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-231
> Project: Syncope
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: console, core
> Reporter: Jan Bernhardt
> Assignee: Jan Bernhardt
> Fix For: 1.1.0
>
> Attachments: TaskService.patch
>
>
> Current REST Interfaces are based on Spring Webservice framework.
> Goal of this task is to replace Spring with CXF and to relay on JAX-B and JAX-RS annotations rather then Spring annotations.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Re: [jira] [Commented] (SYNCOPE-231) Using Standard JAX-RS API in
Syncope (Introducing Apache CXF WS Stack)
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 29/01/2013 11:17, Andrei Shakirin (JIRA) wrote:
>> However, I have the following concerns:
>> 1. the 1_0_X branch has the same test that's working flawlessly with JDK 1.6 and 1.7: why? Is this due to the modification made to make tests re-runnable?
> The same test works even in trunk under 1.6 and under some other conditions, but is it reliable way to write integration tests? Basically it SHOULDN'T work anywhere and runs successfully only occasionally, see [1].
> Problem is that some tests can be easily broken by change absolutely not related with the test itself, like it happens with Task Service implementation (see jira attachment).
> I already have seen the same effect for Notification object [2].
Fine.
>> 2. does it make sense to change something in the core only to have easier and more reliable tests?
> I don't see it as only test related problem. If user configures and uses H2 DB, is there guarantee that it cannot happens during normal project using as well?
>
>> 3. I think it will not be so straightforward to make all necessary adjustments to content.xml in order to cope with new id generation
> Could you elaborate this? Which issues are you expecting? Do you see other ways to fix the problem?
Sorry, I am not following this thread enough to be able to see if there
are other ways to fix; anyway, you (and Fabio) believe so, and for me
it's fine, then.
What I mean above is that I am expecting it will take some time to
adjust the content.xml with ids generated differently: nothing serious,
only time-consuming. But maybe I'm wrong...
> [1] http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/Question-Problem-with-test-UsertTestITCase-issueSYNCOPE279-tt5712389.html
> [2] http://syncope-dev.1063484.n5.nabble.com/Persistence-id-generation-strategy-TABLE-vs-AUTO-td5711813.html
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/