You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> on 2011/07/28 18:07:27 UTC
[core] move or add integration tests to myfaces 2.1.x (now trunk)
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
Re: [core] move or add integration tests to myfaces 2.1.x (now trunk)
Posted by 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
Re: [core] move or add integration tests to myfaces 2.1.x (now trunk)
Posted by 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
> >
> >
>
Re: [core] move or add integration tests to myfaces 2.1.x (now trunk)
Posted by 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
>
>
Re: [core] move or add integration tests to myfaces 2.1.x (now trunk)
Posted by 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
>
Re: [core] move or add integration tests to myfaces 2.1.x (now trunk)
Posted by 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