Just FYI, the reason that :acceptanceTest is currently only a target of precheckin is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3296
For the full details, see this thread on the Gradle Forums: https://discuss.gradle.org/t/test-task-with-forkevery-1-and-includecategories-performs-poorly/23401 On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Patrick Rhomberg <prhomb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1. AcceptanceTest seems fittings, although... > > That test category was created with the focus on tests that run gfsh > scripts via the GfshRule. Because the GfshRule uses the built jar and > actually launches gfsh to run its tests, all current AcceptanceTests exist > in geode-assembly. Perhaps as an oversight, only > :geode-assembly:acceptanceTest is a target of the precheckin task. > > If we want to expand the scope of the AcceptanceTest tag, we'll need to go > update the gradle to make sure these tests get picked up. > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 to using AcceptanceTest category for the end-to-end JDBC connector > > service tests > > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Nick Reich <nre...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > Using AcceptanceTest category seems like a good solution at the moment > to > > > me. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Sean Goller <sgol...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm actually fine with putting it in AcceptanceTest for now. > > > > > > > > Ideally I'd like to see something like JDBC connection strings that > > could > > > > be passed in as properties via the command-line, and if they're not > > > present > > > > the relevant tests don't get run. That way the entity running the > tests > > > can > > > > decide the best way to enable those tests. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Jens Deppe <jde...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm in favor of using docker for test isolation. We already have an > > > > > 'AcceptanceTest' category which you might consider using instead of > > > > > creating yet another category. > > > > > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Nick Reich <nre...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > > > As part of validating the new JDBC connector for Geode, we have a > > > need > > > > > for > > > > > > tests that involving connecting to specific databases (like MySQL > > and > > > > > > Postgres) to validate proper function with those databases. Since > > > these > > > > > > tests require connecting to outside services, unlike existing > Geode > > > > > tests, > > > > > > we are seeking suggestions on how to best incorporate such tests > > into > > > > > > Geode. The approach we have taken so far is to utilize Docker > (and > > > > Docker > > > > > > Compose) to take care of spinning up our external services for > the > > > > > duration > > > > > > of the tests. This, however requires that Docker and Docker > Compose > > > be > > > > > > installed on any machine that the tests are run on. Additionally, > > the > > > > > > Concourse pipeline for validating develop is incompatible with > use > > of > > > > > > Docker for distributed tests, due to the way they are already > being > > > run > > > > > > within Docker containers of their own (it seems possible to make > it > > > > work, > > > > > > but would add overhead to all tests and would be a challenge to > > > > > implement). > > > > > > > > > > > > To address these issues, we are considering having these tests > run > > > > under > > > > > a > > > > > > new task, such as "serviceTest" (instead of IntegrationTest or > > > > > > distributedTest). That way, developers could run all other tests > > > > normally > > > > > > on their machines, only requiring Docker and Docker Compose if > they > > > > wish > > > > > to > > > > > > run these specific tests. This would also allow them to be their > > own > > > > task > > > > > > in Concourse, eliminating the issues that plague integrating > these > > > > tests > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there other ideas on how to manage these tests or concerns > with > > > the > > > > > > proposed approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
