On 23 November 2013 18:51, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I would try to mock before adding fault injection framework. > (Guilty of doing that in a recent patch-in-progress, but I have come to my > senses in time.) No objection to fault injection frameworks per se. Using > HDFS as an example again, please correct me if I'm mistaken, there was an > AOP fault injection framework once but it is currently disabled, a victim > of the migration from Ant to Maven, and possibly will be removed. That and the fact that not only was it brittle, it was under-understood and so undermaintained -people got scared of it, and when it reported problems, the "blame the test framework" became the strategy. > The > trouble with testing frameworks is the added debt they accumulate over > time, like everything else. If we commit to adding one, and also use it as > much as possible, that would be fine with me. Either way, we should > definitely discuss the new/proposed framework and commit it on its own > JIRA. I'm concerned how one got through the back door on HBASE-9949. > > Another is "test frameworks may impose requirements on the underlying code". This exists in YARN where I couldn't make some of the service events of YARN-117 final as it screwed up Mockito. Things like Guice are very visible here, but if you can adapt your code to use it in other ways it may be acceptable. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You.
