Hi, Igniters During work on IEP-30, which is about JUnit migration, I found that some tests in examples module were commented [1] with the remark, that they should be fixed in the ticket IGNITE-711 [2] which is about the implementation of Java 8 examples.
In the context of the ticket IGNITE-10973 [3] I want to uncomment them and mark as @Disabled. Is it really need to disable mentioned tests or I can just remove them as outdated? [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6606/files#diff-ed48193d25d777a2c30c187fa20a1a65L65 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-711 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973 вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 18:51, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com>: > Ivan, > I will investigate GridAbstractTest refactoring issue more precisely when > I finish with JUnit3Legacy classes. Anyway, I will keep in touch with you > and the community on the most significant moments. > > JUnit5 docs say that functionality is not full "especially with regard to > reporting". On the other hand, I also agree with docs that it is the > easiest way that does not require to touch CI infrastructure. I am going to > try @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction with features from IEP to > make sure that we will have the full support of them. The alternative way > is dynamic tests [1], but the problem is that we add methods to suites > manually, not via @Test annotation. It is some kind of rollback to JUnit3 > syntax. > > Anton, > thank you for the reminder, I will update IEP according to the > conversation. > > [1] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests > > вт, 26 февр. 2019 г. в 17:56, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > >> Folks, >> >> Please make sure you keep IEP updated and each issue mentioned. >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:28 PM Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Ivan, >> > >> > Thank you for detailed answers! I would put a great care to >> > @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) construction. As stated in junit5 docs >> > [1] it does not support all features and unfortunately it is not clear >> > how limited it is. Also, it is some kind of transitional mechanism >> > which was not designed for being a long term solution. >> > >> > And I fully support an idea of refactoring GridAbstractTest. I think >> > it is possible to make a significant improvement here. >> > >> > [1] >> > >> https://junit.org/junit5/docs/current/user-guide/#running-tests-junit-platform-runner >> > >> > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 17:41, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > Hello Nikolay. >> > > >> > > The prime benefits are more comfortable work with flaky tests, Java 8 >> > tests >> > > compatibility, user-friendly syntaxis in parametrized tests and >> others. >> > > The most significant features list you can find in IEP-30 Motivation >> > > section. >> > > >> > > If you have any specific questions about JUnit5 feel free to ask me. >> > > >> > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:55, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: >> > > >> > > > Hello, Ivan. >> > > > >> > > > May be I miss some mail - if yes, can you repeat it. >> > > > What is advantages of migration from junit 4 to 5? >> > > > Why we should do it? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > пн, 25 февр. 2019 г. в 16:33, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com>: >> > > > >> > > > > Ivan, >> > > > > That is my thoughts according to your questions. >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. I tried to implement test suits with JUnit4 compatibility >> layer. >> > The >> > > > > basic concept is to use @RunWith(JUnitPlatform.class) >> @SelectClasses >> > > > > ({...})[1] and on >> > > > > CI Ignite it works fine. >> > > > > >> > > > > 2. According to @Rules, there are several ways to solve it: >> > > > > 2.1 Leave JUnit4 code without changes. It will work because of >> > > > Vintage >> > > > > module >> > > > > 2.2 Rewrite the @Rule as an Extension. The work of extension >> is >> > > > similar >> > > > > to the @Rules work, but it is extracted in an Extension class. >> > > > > For more information about extensions, please, follow the IEP >> > [2]. >> > > > > In my opinion, the easiest and the most understandable way is to >> > leave >> > > > > GridAbstractTest in current form. It will work with JUnit5 >> > > > > syntaxis and abilities. >> > > > > >> > > > > 3. I faced a couple of problems during dealing with dynamic and >> > static >> > > > > tests in one project with JUnit5. The problem occurs with surefire >> > > > version: >> > > > > static tests work fine with 2.21x and earlier and with dynamic >> > tests, the >> > > > > situation is vice versa, it works with > 2.21x surefire version. >> > > > > We can use helpful surefire dependency to use static tests with >> the >> > > > newest >> > > > > surefire version [3], but dynamic tests become unavailable from >> pure >> > > > > Maven and accordingly from CI Ignite (from IDE all is fine). >> > > > > I can suggest leaving this type of tests on JUnit4 on the current >> > stage - >> > > > > they are in the vast minority. >> > > > > >> > > > > Let me comment on your side notes. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am not against the stable and widely-used test library usage. >> All I >> > > > want >> > > > > to say that it is not necessary in case of the main testing Ignite >> > > > > framework (Junit) already provides the mentioned features. >> > > > > >> > > > > At the initial stage of improvements 3->4 I am planning to remove >> > > > > JUnit3TestLegacyAssert, JUnit3TestLegacySupport classes. I guess >> that >> > > > > during this work >> > > > > I will face with an issue that you are mentioned - turning >> instance >> > > > methods >> > > > > to static. It is because of beforeTestsStarted and >> afterTestsStarted >> > > > > methods - I want to replace them by methods with BeforeAll, >> AfterAll >> > > > > annotations. But the point is that methods under such annotations >> > must be >> > > > > static. Just now I am not sure about fully removing >> > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest class, but the need for static methods is a >> > fact. >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/85ba3a88d661bb05bbb749bd1feaf60cd9099ddc/examples/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/testsuites/IgniteExamplesSelfTestSuite.java#L59 >> > > > > [2] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5 >> > > > > [3] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/issues/1778 >> > > > > >> > > > > вс, 24 февр. 2019 г. в 10:15, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com >> >: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Ivan, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Indeed junit5 has a lot of powerful features which can improve >> > testing >> > > > > > process. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > But first we should go through a migration process. There are >> > several >> > > > > > items which looks quite challenging. >> > > > > > 1. Test suites support. Correct me if I am missed it, but I have >> > not >> > > > > > found a concept of test suites similar to junit3/4 ones. CI in >> > Ignite >> > > > > > heavily depends on test suites. Is there an alternative in >> junit5? >> > > > > > 2. The majority of our tests extend GridAbstractTest which in >> fact >> > is >> > > > > > a core class in Ignite testing. Writing a test without extending >> > it is >> > > > > > not a good idea. Currently it employs number of junit4 concepts, >> > e.g. >> > > > > > test rules which as I saw are not supported in junit5. So, it >> > sounds >> > > > > > that some changes in GridAbstractTest need to be done. During >> > > > > > migration from junit 3 to 4 GridAbstractTest used kind of >> mimicry, >> > it >> > > > > > can be used as a base class for junit3 and junit4 tests at the >> same >> > > > > > time. How can we address transitional period now? >> > > > > > 3. Also we have bunch of tests using our home-brewed >> > parametrization. >> > > > > > You can find them by searching usages of >> > > > > > ConfigVariationsTestSuiteBuilder. This part was rather tricky >> > during >> > > > > > migration to junit4. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Do we have a plan for all these items? >> > > > > > ---- >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Couple of side notes. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding dependencies minimization. Actually, I think it is >> > important >> > > > > > for junit itself as a library. Many libraries try to minimize >> > > > > > dependency. In Ignite we do so as well. But in my opinion it is >> not >> > > > > > the case in context of libraries used during testing. If we have >> > > > > > useful, stable and widely-used test library which can improve >> our >> > > > > > processes why should not we use it? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding removing leftovers left after junit 3->4 migration. >> > > > > > Actually, I think that GridAbstractTest and >> GridCommonAbstractTest >> > can >> > > > > > be refactored in order to simplify further development and >> > migration >> > > > > > to new testing framework. For example, there are a lot of >> instance >> > > > > > methods which can be turned to static methods. Various >> > start/stopGrid >> > > > > > methods fall into this category. They can be extracted into some >> > > > > > utility class and imported statically. Perhaps, after number of >> > such >> > > > > > refactoring we will be able to write tests without extending >> > > > > > GridCommonAbstractTest. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > пт, 22 февр. 2019 г. в 18:33, Ivan Fedotov <ivanan...@gmail.com >> >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Ivan! >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Junit5 differs from JUnit4 not so strong as 4 from 3 >> version. Of >> > > > > course, >> > > > > > > we can use AssertJ and other libraries, but it is more >> > comfortable to >> > > > > > > use functionality from the box. Moreover, the JUnit team >> provides >> > > > > strong >> > > > > > > support for its products and it is the core JUnit principle - >> > > > minimize >> > > > > > > third-party dependency [1]. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > According to Parameterized tests, it has several cons in >> JUnit4: >> > > > > > > 1. Test classes use fields and constructors to define >> > parameters, >> > > > > which >> > > > > > > make tests more verbose >> > > > > > > 2. It requires a separate test class for each method being >> > tested. >> > > > > > > In JUnit5 it has a simplified parameter syntax and supports >> > multiple >> > > > > > > data-set source types, including CSV and annotation >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Impact on daily test development does not so differ from >> > development >> > > > > on >> > > > > > > JUnit4. We also can use annotations to mark methods as tests, >> but >> > > > some >> > > > > > main >> > > > > > > annotations have >> > > > > > > different names - you can see it in the ticket description >> [2]. >> > You >> > > > > have >> > > > > > to >> > > > > > > use those annotations and different import, but these are >> minor >> > > > > changes. >> > > > > > > We can change suites from static to dynamic tests [3], but I >> am >> > not >> > > > > sure >> > > > > > > that it is necessary. If you have any arguments in favor of >> > dynamic >> > > > > > tests, >> > > > > > > I am ready to discuss them. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Now I see that changes in GridAbstractTest are not required. >> > Only >> > > > > > > improvements in JUnit 3->4 migration, which were given in IEP. >> > Other >> > > > > > JUnit5 >> > > > > > > features we can use with additional imports. The problem can >> > appear >> > > > > with >> > > > > > > dynamic tests because we can not launch static and dynamic >> under >> > one >> > > > > > > surefire version. I made a preliminary migration on examples >> > module, >> > > > > you >> > > > > > > can take a look on it [4], but now it is still in work. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I tried to find some other JUnit5 features and added them to >> > IEP. If >> > > > I >> > > > > > miss >> > > > > > > something, please, let me now, we will also take it into >> account. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] >> https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/wiki/Core-Principles >> > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10958 >> > > > > > > [3] https://www.baeldung.com/junit5-dynamic-tests >> > > > > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5888 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:45, Павлухин Иван < >> vololo...@gmail.com >> > >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thank you for your efforts! >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I checked a section "Motivation" in IEP and I think that we >> > should >> > > > > add >> > > > > > > > more details there. You provided mostly examples of more >> > convenient >> > > > > > > > assertions. But there are other options to deal with it. >> E.g. >> > > > AssertJ >> > > > > > > > library [1] (I think that we can consider it even after >> > migration >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > junit5). It would be great if we can describe some junit5 >> > features >> > > > > > > > which can make our life simpler and there is no alternative >> in >> > > > > junit4. >> > > > > > > > E.g. we have the similar Parameterized concept in junit4, >> so it >> > > > does >> > > > > > > > not look as a big win here. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Also, an impact on everyday development should be estimated. >> > As I >> > > > > > > > know, junit5 has a compatibility layer which allows to >> migrate >> > from >> > > > > > > > junit4 seamlessly. But as I understood you would like to use >> > new >> > > > > > > > junit5 features. And we have well-known GridAbstractTest >> which >> > > > > > > > historically was bound to junit3, now is bound to junit4. >> > Should we >> > > > > > > > change it significantly for junit5? Should we change other >> > existing >> > > > > > > > tests? Suites? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Could you please address my concerns? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Let's discuss pros and cons. I will be happy to help there. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/ >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 18:07, Ivan Fedotov < >> > ivanan...@gmail.com>: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you, access is fine. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I have created the corresponding IEP [1]. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Now I am going to continue work on this. If somebody has >> any >> > > > > > suggestions >> > > > > > > > or >> > > > > > > > > additions I am ready to discuss them. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-30%3A+Migration+to+JUnit+5 >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > чт, 21 февр. 2019 г. в 01:42, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > dpav...@apache.org >> > > > >: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Done, please check access now. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 21:49, Ivan Fedotov < >> > > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, thank you for the response. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > My wiki username is "ivanan", the related mailbox is >> > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > . >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:38, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > > > > dpav...@apache.org >> > > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Now admin service is unavailable (gives error 503). >> > I'll >> > > > add >> > > > > > rights >> > > > > > > > > > once >> > > > > > > > > > > it >> > > > > > > > > > > > is up and running. >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you share your wiki username? I can't find any >> > users >> > > > > who >> > > > > > > > signed >> > > > > > > > > > up >> > > > > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > > > > > the wiki with any similar email/username >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 20 февр. 2019 г. в 18:26, Ivan Fedotov < >> > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com>: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to formalize migration to JUnit5 and >> > create >> > > > > IEP >> > > > > > > > which >> > > > > > > > > > > will >> > > > > > > > > > > > > include related issues. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I already started to work on one of the issues [1] >> > and >> > > > > > created a >> > > > > > > > > > draft >> > > > > > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the corresponding IEP [2]. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, give me rights for confluence to create >> IEP. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10973 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] >> > > > > > > > >> > https://gist.github.com/1vanan/1f81319f1dc6d6ebca30c216fdd82759 >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > Ivan Fedotov. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Ivan Fedotov. >> > > > > >> > > > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Ivan Fedotov. >> > > >> > > ivanan...@gmail.com >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > >> > > > -- > Ivan Fedotov. > > ivanan...@gmail.com > -- Ivan Fedotov. ivanan...@gmail.com
