If we need them, we should keep them. My premise was that we don't. I am trying to understand the need to use a non TC-managed database with tests though.
A. > On Feb 1, 2025, at 5:28 AM, Nikita Timofeev <ntimof...@objectstyle.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Just a quick note on the use case for non-Testcontainers profiles: they > allow external DB connections, while TC parameters are hardcoded. Perhaps > we could add flexibility to TC profiles to fully replace non-TC ones. > > Nikita > > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2025, 00:34 Michael Gentry <blackn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Never used TC, so I don't know the pros/cons, but I like the idea of them. >> If there aren't really any significant drawbacks, I'd say we don't need the >> non-TC profiles. >> >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 6:42 PM Andrus Adamchik <aadamc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Was running Cayenne tests today and noticed our pom still has pairs of >>> profiles. E.g. "mysql" and "mysql-tc". My question is - do we really need >>> non-tc profiles? I'd only keep the "tc" ones (renaming them back to just >>> the DB name). Testcontainers FTW! :) >>> >>> Andrus >>
