I'm pretty sure we could rename gemfire-junit to gemfire-test. gemfire-junit was named only because of gemfire-test existing in a different repo.
Currently, all of our reusable testing utilities/classes/rules are under src/test/java in either gemfire-junit or gemfire-core (dunit is all under the latter because it depends on DistributedSystem). This placement is a hold-over from the old build structure. I think creating a library of test common is a good idea and the testing classes would probably move from src/test/java into src/main/java and then be assembled into a jar (such as gemfire-test-common.jar). Is that the general idea? All of our dependencies on gemfire-junit are currently other subprojects depending on its build dir which contains the classes from its src/test/java (hence no jar). gemfire-common (reusable non-test-related components) gemfire-test (reusable test-related components) gemfire-core currently has more reusable test-related components than gemfire-junit, but all of these (including Annotations, custom Rules, etc) are currently under src/test/java as well. If we're going to clean up gemfire-junit(test) and move its classes from src/test/java (except the tests) to src/main/java then we should do the same for dunit and other reusable test-related components in gemfire-core as well. -Kirk On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > You don't want runtime libraries and test time libraries in the same jar. > Putting junit utility and annotation classes that would only be used in > junits in a jar that would have to be included in a production class path > is broken. Gemfire-common.jar would imply something common to gemfire at > runtime, like string utils, logging, and other cross cutting runtime > concerns. > > > > > If you want a library for common test classes then think > gemfire-test-common.jar or something. > > > > > Jacob Barrett > Manager > GemFire Advanced Customer Engineering (ACE) > Pivotal > > [email protected] > 503-533-3763 > > For immediate support please contact Pivotal Support at > http://support.pivotal.io/ > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Anthony Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Annotations are utilities…? The gemfire-junit name seems unnecessarily > restrictive. Currently it only contains annotations related to junit tests. > > Hadoop defines both hadoop-annotations and hadoop-common. > > Anthony > >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Jacob Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Reserve common for things common to geode development not related to > unit testing. Like utilities classes. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Jacob Barrett > >> Manager > >> GemFire Advanced Customer Engineering (ACE) > >> Pivotal > >> > >> [email protected] > >> 503-533-3763 > >> > >> For immediate support please contact Pivotal Support at > http://support.pivotal.io/ > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Kirk Lund <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> I filed ticket GEODE-327 to propose renaming gemfire-junit to > >>> gemfire-common. > >>> We'd like to be able to define common annotations in this > gemfire-common > >>> and not be limited to code that is specific to junit or testing. The > first > >>> annotation would be Experimental (see GEODE-328). > >>> Please vote on making this change. > >>> Thanks, > >>> Kirk >
