Sounds reasonable to me. On 5/3/14 4:54 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi, > >Well I spent quite some time on the BlazeDS build and would say that I >finally setup everything so we should have a valid no-deps build. > >There were still a small set of problems in the ANT build that caused >problems when initially building BlazeDS. Alex did fix most of the other >problems though. The clean tasks were trying to delete lib directories, >which didn't exist if you hadn't built BlazeDS before ... extending a >erroronmissingdir="false" to those problematic file-sets resolved these >problems. Another problem was missing lib dirs while downloading stuff >during a build. I added some mkdir commands to the download.xml in order >to resolve this. > >Now to the main problem with the build: > >The old testsuite seemed to require a BlazeDS server running on the same >machine (No matter what version of BlazeDS this was). Without this server >being available, some of the tests would fail (Even if I was surprised >how little tests actually did fail). > >I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of builds where you have to setup >external services and have Jenkins execute manual batch commands in order >to have everything running. I prefer to have the test provide everything >it needs. So I started working on a solution that uses Jetty to start a >minimal BlazeDS server that is able to service the requests the testsuite >needs. Fortunately this was quite easy. The only problem I had was that >in core some tests actually required functionality from the remoting >module. Now remoting having a dependency to core and core having one to >remoting will not work. But I thought ... if tests in core actually >require functionality in remoting, they are actually not pure unit-tests >and more of an integration test thing. What I did now was to add a >"testsuite" module to the "modules" directory and moved all tests >(actually only core had any) to that module. Now I was able to have the >testsuite start a BlazeDS server of the exact same version we are >currently building and to run all the tests against this without having >to setup anything on the CI server. > >I didn't however want to commit this without asking you guys here. First >I would like to hear if there are any objections to that change ... so if >there are any, I'm willing to hear them out first ;-) >Chris > > > >
