Thanks Attila

That’s what I had expected. 

For info: Docker is required here because of all the build/test infrastructure 
within the Beam project - plus it needs to be portable across environments 
without devs needing to intervene for all the target systems. Binaries would 
presumably differ per environment right?

I have Kudu running in Docker ok.

Thank you also for offering to review - I appreciate it greatly.

Tim,
Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 13:50, Attila Bukor <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi TIm,
> 
> If you’re referring to MiniKuduCluster, it requires the Kudu binaries to 
> start a MiniCluster which in turn uses the actual kudu-master and 
> kudu-tserver binaries to set up a cluster, so it requires the Kudu binaries 
> to be available and will use separate processes, but you don’t have to set up 
> an actual cluster beforehand.
> 
> I agree that in unit tests Kudu should be mocked, but I don’t think Docker is 
> necessary for the integration tests though, the MiniCluster should be used 
> imho.
> 
> I’d be happy to look at the pull request, but I’m not a committer, so it 
> would be nice to have someone else look at it as well.
> 
> Attila
> 
>> On 2018. Jun 5., at 12:11, Tim Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> I'm starting up development of a Java based connector to Kudu for Apache
>> Beam - i.e. a source and sink to Kudu for beam pipelines.
>> 
>> For testing, the Beam project favours "mini integration tests" rather than
>> mocking - e.g. spinning up an embedded HBase / Solr server. In addition the
>> beam project also has a set of separate integration tests that make us use
>> kubernetes.
>> 
>> My understanding is for Kudu the embedded Java server is a wrapper around a
>> running kudu cluster. I don't believe there is an embeddable Kudu for
>> testing right (even an API compliant / mock server)?
>> 
>> My current thinking is to mock Kudu in unit tests and provide an
>> integration test using kudu running in Docker. Can anyone propose a better
>> option or confirm this sounds reasonable please?
>> 
>> Once written would a kind Kudu dev be willing to take a look before I put
>> it up for a pull request in Beam perhaps? It would mean a lot to get a nod
>> from you folk that it looks correct.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
> 
> 

Reply via email to