Hi Andrew, I've created a ticket [1] that captures a simple discussion for a test harness along with a reference to a commit that contains an example. This example isn't intended to be a complete. I'm sure it will evolve or change completely, but I wanted to provide an example from which we could work so we had something to discuss in the ticket. Please let me know your wants/desires for this harness. Would love some feedback/help on this from you or anyone else. We can also incorporate gmock to make some of this easier and am completely open to that idea.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-335 Best Regards, Marc Parisi On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Christianson < [email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good. I will keep an eye out for those merges. > > " For example, it would be nice to eat our own dog food by creating > interfaces for easily instantiating and connecting processors." > > Hits the nail on the head. Creating all the underlying > infrastructure/connections when I really just want to test onTrigger is the > real headache at this point. > > Regards, > > Andy > ________________________________________ > From: Marc <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 10:42:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: MiNiFi C++ Unit Test Example > > Andrew, > To come back around to this I wanted to let you know I have a PR to > complete some of the activities regarding volatile repos. Provenance and > FlowFile volatile repos are mostly complete with a pending PR to tie in the > reporting functionality to it. I'm nearly read to update said PR for the > content repo. The goal here is to move most tests over to volatile repos > unless those tests specifically need, which I'm testing now. Currently we > write content to the test folder, I want this to go away before I jump into > a test harness. > In regards to your question about an example minimal test. We have the > ProcessorTests.cpp and various other processor specific tests; however, > there is still a lot to add. I'd like to get to a point that we can more > easily build some of these tests using the code that exists to run the > agent. For example, it would be nice to eat our own dog food by creating > interfaces for easily instantiating and connecting processors. I have some > ideas, so I'll put them up in a ticket once my current effort is finished. > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Marc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Andrew, > > That is something we would love to see I think. We could certainly > > facilitate testing and is something that has been discussed. I'm unsure > if > > a ticket exists, though. Feel free to make a ticket to begin building > some > > of the test framework for functional components. I'll be happy to help > when > > I have some cycles. > > > > On May 30, 2017 11:14 AM, "Andrew Christianson" <andrew.christianson@ > > nextcentury.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I am currently working on final preparations for the merge request on > >> MINIFI-244. I see that a unit test framework has been added to the code > >> base. Looking through the extant unit tests, there is a significant > amount > >> of boilerplate and it is unclear to me what would be an idiomatic unit > test > >> for MiNiFi C++. > >> > >> Is there/could someone produce an example minimal unit test source code > >> for a MiNiFi processor? Alternatively, are there plans/efforts to > extract > >> out some of this boilerplate? > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Andy > > > > >
