Hi Christian,
looking at the arquillian.xml files, they are 99% the same, the only one
that actually differs (other than whitespace, comments and missing
cdicontainer.version property) is the one in the data module, containing
a testDatabase configuration for tomee. So, we could have just one
arquillian.xml file somewhere in the testsuite root, copy it over using
resources-plugin, and override it only when necessary.
One minor problem is -- and this is for the container unpacking too --
that to point to the testsuite root, every pom would need to keep a
relative reference to it (e.g.
<testsuite.root>../../..</testsuite.root>), which is ugly, but doable.
On 3.1.2014 06:26, Christian Kaltepoth wrote:
Hey Ron,
yeah, there are differences between arquillian.xml files. But why? I don't
see any reason for having different arquillian.xml files between modules.
Actually the integration test Maven profiles are also located in a single
parent pom and not in each individual module pom. IMHO we should treat
arquillian.xml the same way. Unless there is a good reason for having
multiple ones.
I agree that we should unpack the container only once. I'm not sure I like
to use java.io.tmpdir though. It would be nice to have it in the top-level
"target" directory or something like that. That would ensure that running
"mvn clean" would also remove the unpacked container.
Christian
2014/1/2 Ron Smeral <[email protected]>
On 2.1.2014 17:55, Christian Kaltepoth wrote:
Hey all,
there are two things I would like to address regarding our integration
test
suite.
1. Currently each module has its own arquillian.xml file. IMHO this
doesn't
make sense. What about using a single arquillian.xml and placing it in the
test-utils module?
+0, there are minor differences among them currently (though not sure if
necessary), and it would make it more difficult to make an individual
modification if there was single arquillian.xml.
2. We have both "managed" and "remote" profiles for some containers. But
the "managed" profiles (especially Wildfly + Glassfish) require you to
manually download and setup the corresponding container which I would like
to avoid. I think it would be nicer if the "managed" profiles could do
this
automatically. This would simplify the process of running the tests
locally
before committing and it would also be easier to create CI jobs for them.
See [1] for an example of a profile which sets up the container
automatically and therefore runs out of the box even in transient CI
environments like Travis [2].
There already is such profile at least for JBoss AS7
(jbossas-build-managed-7) and at this very moment I'm adding such profile
for WildFly. However, currently there is a minor drawback to the current
approach -- the container is unpacked for every module and so almost 5 GB
of diskspace is required to run the whole testsuite, which is quite
impractical. It would be nice to have the container unpacked to a shared
location, e.g. ${java.io.tmpdir}, just as in the ocpsoft rewrite pom you
linked. I'll try that in the AS7 and WF8 profiles.
Thoughts?
[1] https://github.com/ocpsoft/rewrite/blob/master/pom.xml#L706
[2] https://travis-ci.org/ocpsoft/rewrite/builds/16192940
Christian
--
Ron Smeral
JBoss Quality Engineer
Brno
--
Ron Smeral
JBoss Quality Engineer
Brno
