+1 for disabling Milo, we should be able to build with docker compose up without running into these issues.
If someone needs Milo test then actively enabling them seems like a reasonable plan. Lukad Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> schrieb am Mo., 25. Sept. 2023, 10:59: > Hi Lukasz, > > Well … we need a test-suite that runs reliably … in the past I usually ran > into issues with Milo not running on various configurations. > Admittedly I’m just no longer willing to invest the little time into > fixing issues with this bit of software. > > For example, running “docker compose up” currently fails because in docker > something seems to fail to startup, which doesn’t fail when running on the > hardware directly. > > I’m happy for a profile “option-with-milo-tests” that actively enables > Milo-based tests. > (I would insist on actively enabling it instead of actively disabling it > as otherwise people will continuously report problems with it) > > Chris > > > > Von: Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> > Datum: Montag, 25. September 2023 um 10:49 > An: dev@plc4x.apache.org <dev@plc4x.apache.org> > Cc: Patryk Gała <patryk.gala....@gmail.com> > Betreff: Re: Convert the Milo-based test suite into one using our > integration-test framework? > Milo is a bit painful, but it does more than we currently can do in our > opcua implementation. Also, from basic look I had into why some of tests > fail, it looks primarily like resource lookup issue. For example I > spotted a swallowed null pointer exception which comes from our code, > not Milo. > > We will have difficult times making test framework for testing security > with certificates and Java crypto apis. Please hold on with major > changes in this area, as we intend using it to automate testing of UA > security policies (sign, sing&encrypt) using various modes (basic rsa, > basic aes etc.). > Back then Patryk had an idea of making a "test container" for Milo which > would separate it into its own process. Obviously it will need a bit of > work and will become a prerequisite to eventual test refactoring, > however it will make it (fail) same way for everyone. ;) > > Best, > Łukasz > > On 25.09.2023 10:38, Christofer Dutz wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I know that I have spent many days tracking down oddness of problem with > OPC-UA tests, that all tracked down to Milo behaving oddly on various > platforms (Doesn#t start in Parallells VMs, has issues being run in docker, > …). > > When building PLC4X I put a lot of effort into our integration-test > framework, which should allow testing our drivers on various platforms and > languages without needing a real (or simulated) device. > > > > I think we should translate the Milo based tests into ones using our > DriverTestsuite framework, as admittedly I’m fedup with Milo … > > > > > > Chris > > > > >
