Thanks Anjil - I think this is a great idea and want to see your PR. Victor. As I noted in October 2020, one important principle is to make sure this is maintainable by the project. (see comments https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1170 ) To that end, the documentation and set up need to be reviewed before acceptance. It has to be relatively easy to understand and maintain, and the initial contribution should be documented enough to be maintained by someone other than Anjil, although I fully hope that Anjil will remain involved 100% .
Arnold has raised the importance of ensuring that it doesn't add to the build time. I agree. My comment in 2020 was to include it as part of the build (CI), but I think the better approach is to have a manual kick off as suggested by Victor. Arnold has also asked about the completeness, reliability, and quality of the tests. I would expect that we cannot know that until we see the contribution that is proposed. We should then spend some time - i.e. longer than the minimum time and less than a month - to fully review and accept. Size of contribution? One of the check marks in the PR says "not a large code dump". Does this qualify as a large code dump? If so, then it needs additional review and acceptance. That can be part of the above extended review period. Moreover, once this is in place, we then would add an expectation that all new features would also need an assertion in the jmeter setup, prior to PR acceptance. We would need to include jmeter assertion as a required part of the PR. On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:20 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx> wrote: > Also I am bringing these Jira tickets into the conversation table > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1170 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1238 > > Regards > > Victor > > > El mar, 16 ene 2024 a las 9:59, VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ (< > victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx>) escribió: > >> Hello Arnold, >> >> - I am trying to show where to put the JMeter in the project structure, >> not in a particular order. >> - The integration suite test cases are listed anywhere or it creates a >> test case report that can be viewed or exported for later review? >> - JMeter is not for adding an extra layer/step during the build process, >> but for being executed on demand. >> - About flakiness ... I don't get the point? Can it be explained a little >> bit more? >> - Proposal of another folder in the Fineract project is to add the Jmeter >> assets independently. >> >> Regards >> >> El mar, 16 ene 2024 a las 1:08, Arnold Galovics (<arn...@apache.org>) >> escribió: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> Despite the fact that I like extra test coverage, let's slow down a >>> little bit before rushing any integration. >>> >>> I'd have a couple of questions about these tests: >>> - Victor, you're saying these tests should come before >>> fineract-provider, so within the regular build process yet these are >>> JMeter, performance related test cases. So what are the assertions in >>> these? I'm a little confused about what these are. >>> - Did we do any cross-check with our integration suite if these test >>> cases are covered and we are not introducing duplication unnecessarily? >>> - The build times are already slower than ever, did we evaluate how much >>> increase these would mean? >>> - How about flakyness on these tests? >>> - I'm also interested in the general quality of the tests because >>> maintainability on most of the existing integration test suite is difficult. >>> >>> Again, I'm not against any new test case/suite introduction, but let's >>> clarify the benefits and the drawbacks. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> Best, >>> Arnold >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 6:44 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < >>> victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Anjil, >>>> >>>> Version 1.9.0 is tagged at: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/fineract/tree/1.9.0 >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Victor >>>> >>>> El lun, 15 ene 2024 a las 23:42, ANJIL CHINNAPATHLOLLA (< >>>> anchi...@in.ibm.com>) escribió: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Victor / Mugabe, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I will verify the test suite against 1.9.0, make necessary minor >>>>> changes wherever required and raise the PR. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Anjil , >>>>> >>>>> Power Systems Performance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Magezi Arthur <artmag...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 3:35 AM >>>>> *To: *dev@fineract.apache.org <dev@fineract.apache.org> >>>>> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: API Test Case for Fineract >>>>> >>>>> Great proposal here. Anjil this would definitely be of great help. >>>>> MUGABE MAGEZI ARTHUR Software Developer and Process Management Consultant >>>>> emails: artmagezi@ gmail. com atmagezi@ yahoo. co. uk Mob: >>>>> +256704901261 facebook: Magezi ArthurSkype: marthur26The >>>>> >>>>> Great proposal here. Anjil this would definitely be of great help. >>>>> >>>>> *MUGABE MAGEZI ARTHUR* >>>>> >>>>> Software Developer and >>>>> >>>>> Process Management Consultant >>>>> >>>>> emails: >>>>> >>>>> *artmag...@gmail.com* <artmag...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> *atmag...@yahoo.co.uk <atmag...@yahoo.co.uk>* >>>>> >>>>> Mob: +256704901261 >>>>> >>>>> facebook: Magezi Arthur >>>>> >>>>> Skype: marthur26 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Struggle the doesn't break you will make you, if you hold a little >>>>> longer under that fire you will certainly come out as Gold >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 20:37, VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < >>>>> victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Fineract Community, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you think about integrating these tests on Apache >>>>> Fineract. The Apache JMeter Tests can be included in this way: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Apache Fineract >>>>> >>>>> | >>>>> >>>>> ------Functional Test (Anjil contribution) >>>>> >>>>> | >>>>> >>>>> -----fineract-provider >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you have any comments about this proposal? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Victor Romero >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> El vie, 12 ene 2024 a las 15:06, VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ (< >>>>> victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx>) escribió: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Anjil, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think it suits perfectly. Because it will help us to evaluate, >>>>> verify, test the functionality between release. I.E. a possible 1.8.5 >>>>> release and the 1.9.0. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And this is important because with the results the community can be >>>>> aware of the changes requiered on its applicatons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope to listen (read) other community members opinion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Victor >>>>> >>>>> El vie., 12 de enero de 2024 2:12 p. m., ANJIL CHINNAPATHLOLLA < >>>>> anchi...@in.ibm.com> escribió: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Victor and community members, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have a JMeter based test suite of Fineract (1.8.4) REST APIs put >>>>> together for the performance evaluation of our Infrastructure. I have them >>>>> classified into two categories >>>>> >>>>> 1. Setup Test suite – This contains set of APIs to setup a banking >>>>> environment, define products etc. >>>>> 2. Transactions test suite – This contains various frequently run >>>>> account operations (Savings Deposits, withdrawals, balance enquiries, >>>>> loan >>>>> disbursal etc) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Posting below a screenshot of the test suits which can accommodate >>>>> more test cases into respective groups as the need arises. The test suit >>>>> serves the purpose of evaluating both functional as well as performance >>>>> aspects of the use cases across the builds. If we think this helps with >>>>> the >>>>> purpose you are looking for below, I can contribute the test suits into >>>>> the >>>>> Fineract GitHub (With appropriate modifications to be consumable by the >>>>> community). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Error! Filename not specified.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Anjil , >>>>> >>>>> Power Systems Performance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must set >>>>> yourself on fire.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From: *VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx> >>>>> *Date: *Saturday, 13 January 2024 at 12:18 AM >>>>> *To: *Dev <dev@fineract.apache.org> >>>>> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] API Test Case for Fineract >>>>> >>>>> Hello Fineract Community, I want to know if there is any Bundle of >>>>> Test Cases for Apache Fineract API Rest that can be used to test the >>>>> Apache >>>>> Fineract vanilla version. - Create data codes (genders) - Create offices - >>>>> Create delinquency bucket- >>>>> >>>>> Hello Fineract Community, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I want to know if there is any Bundle of Test Cases for Apache >>>>> Fineract API Rest that can be used to test the Apache Fineract vanilla >>>>> version. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Create data codes (genders) >>>>> >>>>> - Create offices >>>>> >>>>> - Create delinquency bucket >>>>> >>>>> - Create loan product >>>>> >>>>> - Create client >>>>> >>>>> - Create loan account (application, approval, disbursement) >>>>> >>>>> - Create repayments. >>>>> >>>>> - Etc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I know that we have in the source code testing case (unit/integration >>>>> test cases) that are executed as part of the building process, but this >>>>> question is more related to a bundle/orchestration of complete functional >>>>> flows in order to make sure that the nightly build or the release has a >>>>> functional quality check of its REST APIs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Victor >>>>> >>>>>
