I was wondering about that on a recent patch... I'd have done it in the patch but i can't delete files...
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > It seems there was a consensus that MAC should be moved to server. Is > anyone going to do this for 1.5? > > One more advantage of this move would be putting MAC in its one package. > Currently it shares a package with a lot of unrelated test code. > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think I like the idea of moving it to server and working towards MAC > and > > the "regular" processes being equal citizens. Whether or not we make a > > convenient option to auto-start a proxy is more of a discussion about how > > easy we want to make startup for a new person. > > > > As much as I think we need to get 1.5 out the door, I think this may be > > best to nip right away rather than create confusion about "where did MAC > > go!" immediately after 1.5.0 is released. > > > > The server module seems like the most painless and correct home for > > MiniAccumuloCluster. > > > > > > On 4/28/13 1:45 AM, Christopher wrote: > > > >> I agree that accumulo-test is the best place, but I think we should > >> make it a point that no other modules should depend on accumulo-test > >> for precisely this reason... to provide a place for end-to-end tests > >> of other modules (the assembly module notwithstanding). > >> > >> This is actually a good reason to move MiniAccumuloCluster from test, > >> because the proxy currently has a dependency on it just for > >> MiniAccumuloCluster. That way, end-to-end integration testing that > >> includes even testing of the proxy would make sense to exist in > >> accumulo-test, and we'd avoid a circular dependency. It could be moved > >> to server instead, as it seems to me that it is essentially an > >> alternate server implementation (from the proxy's perspective, > >> anyway). Though, I'm not sure I like the idea that the proxy is > >> dependent on anything other than client code (accumulo-core). > >> > >> Alternatively, the proxy's dependency could be reversed, so that > >> instead of the proxy having an option to start up a > >> MiniAccumuloCluster, the MiniAccumuloCluster could have an option to > >> start up the proxy. This reversal actually makes more sense to me > >> anyway. I never understood why the proxy should have the option to > >> start up Accumulo, Mini or otherwise, as the natural operation, as it > >> seems to me to be a bit backwards: an interface launching the service, > >> rather than a service exposing an interface. I suppose it's not > >> unprecedented, but it seems backwards to me. > >> > >> A third option is to move MiniAccumuloCluster to another module > >> entirely, but I'm not so sure that's necessary or desirable. > >> > >> Any of these options removes the circular dependency, if we're going > >> to make the accumulo-test the place to put end-to-end integration > >> tests. > >> > >> My preference is a combination of the first two options: to put > >> MiniAccumuloCluster in the server module and reverse the dependency, > >> so that proxy only depends on core, and none depend on test. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Christopher L Tubbs II > >> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Corey Nolet <cno...@texeltek.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> So the accumulo-test would be the best place to start putting end to > end > >>>> integration tests? > >>>> > >>>> For test against code in modules that can not depend on > accumulo-test I > >>> think this is a good place. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone > >>>> > >>>> -------- Original message -------- > >>>> From: Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > >>>> Date: 04/26/2013 7:27 AM (GMT-05:00) > >>>> To: Accumulo Dev List <dev@accumulo.apache.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: Integration Tests > >>>> > >>>> The maven-failsafe-plugin is already configured to execute integration > >>>> tests in the 1.5 branch and trunk. Simply name your JUnit classes to > >>>> execute with the pattern of "*IT" (vs. "*Test" for unit tests), and > >>>> they'll execute during the integration test phase of the build > >>>> lifecycle. That way, they won't slow down a "mvn package" build, but > >>>> they'll still get executed for a full build "mvn verify". > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >>>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Corey Nolet <cno...@texeltek.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Would it make sense to start putting more integration tests for > tablet > >>>>> > >>>> servers, master, connector, etc… inside of the accumulo-test module > (or > >>>> some other module)? Seems like it'd be useful to have tests at the > >>>> various > >>>> layers. Until we have a plugin to start up the mini acc cluster once > and > >>>> only once, I don't want to drastically slow down the build. I would, > >>>> however, like to have some integration tests for a current ticket I'm > >>>> working on. > >>>> > >>>> > > > -- Corey Nolet Senior Software Engineer TexelTek, inc. [Office] 301.880.7123 [Cell] 410-903-2110
