Andy,
  This is great stuff. To facilitate use by developers we should probably
come to agreement on terminology. In my opinion, it seems that you are
facilitating more system integration testing (SIT) based on our
discussions. While what you are doing doesn't preclude you from integrating
one or two components it does cause confusion on what to use when I want to
test something. I think the same exists for our unit and integration tests
that we have now, but those are a function of design decisions made vice a
focus on testability. I think most of the tests that use the docker
framework will be system tests, and the importance of this is that we
should probably isolate these to a separate target. I think better
isolation of what these test facilities do will end users, and limiting
what ctest executes to pure unit and modular integration tests will be very
useful.
   I think that also helps sell the story that one must install docker if
they want to run system integration tests, but you can still integrate
several components with ctest if you want to limit what you are testing. I
personally look forward to these changes as I think having multi host tests
will help find more bugs, but I wouldn't want this to run when I type make
test.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Andy Christianson <
achristian...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> MiNiFi cpp team,
>
>
> I am currently working on MINIFI-350. I have an integration test framework
> plus a few integration tests which are invoked via a new script called
> docker/DockerVerify.sh (https://github.com/achristianson/nifi-minifi-cpp/
> blob/MINIFI-350/docker/DockerVerify.sh?). This is intended to be
> consistent in naming and structure to the extant DockerBuild.sh.
>
>
> My question resides in a final bit of integration. I see that there is a
> custom CMake target in cmake/DockerConfig.cmake that calls DockerBuild.sh.
> It seems like the best thing to integrate DockerVerify.sh is to add a
> sibling CMake custom target, perhaps called something like 'docker-verify.'
>
>
> A few stylistic/structural questions come to mind. Do we want these
> integration tests to be invoked directly via a custom target, or do we want
> that custom target to be an intermediate target which is called by some
> existing 'make test' or 'make verify' target? The biggest risk, from what I
> can see, is that if we hooked into 'make test,' then it would fail if the
> user hadn't already run 'make docker.'
>
>
> Please advise on preferred style and structure with regard to integration
> of the new docker integration tests with CMake.
>
>
> -Andy I.C.
>

Reply via email to