> Would the runner plugin allow us to move that test back to the 
> polaris-runtime-service module?

Yes

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 12:52 PM Alexandre Dutra <adu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> If the runner plugins can save us from the dependency nightmare
> between Spark and Quarkus, imo that's a huge selling point.
>
> An example: the QuarkusSparkIT test lives in its own module (!),
> precisely because of dependency issues. Would the runner plugin allow
> us to move that test back to the polaris-runtime-service module? If
> yes, that would be awesome.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 11:14 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote:
> >
> > That's correct. That "dependency hell" wouldn't exist.
> >
> > Another aspect is that the integration tests all require their
> > "custom" Quarkus build, which would not be necessary with the
> > apprunner, leading to faster CI.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 3:42 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I was reviewing our Antlr4 dependencies in Spark tests yesterday and 
> > > realised
> > > that having a running plugin would simplify those tests a lot.
> > >
> > > The current problem is that Quarkus has a different dependency tree from
> > > Spark and combining the two in the same test run requires close attention
> > > to managing dependencies (e.g. we currently pin Antlr4 because of that).
> > >
> > > On the point of ExecFork, etc., I believe that having a custom runner 
> > > allows
> > > more natural integration with the test code, hence simpler test 
> > > maintenance.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dmitri.
> > >
> > > On 2025/06/16 06:00:00 Pierre Laporte wrote:
> > > > Hello folks,
> > > >
> > > > Bumping this thread following the community sync.
> > > >
> > > > Summary of what was discussed during the sync:
> > > > * We do want to provide Polaris users with a way to run temporary 
> > > > Polaris
> > > > servers during their integration tests.
> > > > * This validates one of the main goals of the Apprunner proposal [1]: be
> > > > usable by Maven projects as well as Gradle projects.
> > > > * The current proposal is based on prior work from Nessie, works with 
> > > > both
> > > > Maven and Gradle, and offers substantial improvements over alternatives
> > > > like testcontainers in CI.
> > > > * Given that a solution based on Gradle ExecFork or Gretty would only 
> > > > serve
> > > > Polaris devs, and would not be usable by users, it does not seems to be 
> > > > a
> > > > good fit for the overarching goal.
> > > > * Some companies who deploy Polaris forbid the use of Docker, which
> > > > prevents the use of testcontainers.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/pull/18/
> > > >
> > > > Based on these elements, it seems that the current Apprunner plugins 
> > > > should
> > > > be evaluated for integration in the polaris-tools repository.  Now 
> > > > before
> > > > calling for a formal review cycle, it would be good to have more 
> > > > feedback
> > > > on the proposal, if certain aspects have not been considered yet.
> > > >
> > > > Wdyt?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Pierre
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 1:36 AM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the late reply.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you clarify why you think that?  It is a bit hard to provide 
> > > > > answers
> > > > > > to such feedback.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I meant is that the PR [1] seems to provide a lot more than just
> > > > > Polaris related logic, which isn't a concern of the Polaris project. 
> > > > > It's
> > > > > fine if it is trying to be a generic gradle plugin to allow start and 
> > > > > end a
> > > > > server easily, but it could be somewhere else. Can we focus on the
> > > > > functionalities related to Polaris?
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, here are two options. Both seem to cover our requirements
> > > > > here, while Gretty is easier to use. Can we explore them?
> > > > >
> > > > >    1. ExecFork[2], which runs any Java / shell process in the 
> > > > > background
> > > > >    2. Gretty[3], a Jetty / Tomcat dev-server with start/stop tasks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]. https://github.com/apache/polaris-tools/pull/18
> > > > > [2]. https://github.com/psxpaul/gradle-execfork-plugin
> > > > > [3]. https://github.com/gretty-gradle-plugin/gretty
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yufei
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 12:44 AM Pierre Laporte <pie...@pingtimeout.fr>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 7:40 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm supportive if it adds value to both Polaris devs and users.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok thanks, I am glad we have agreement on the initiative, even if we
> > > > > still
> > > > > > have to discuss the implementation details.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But, I don't think the Polaris project is in a position to provide a
> > > > > > > generic building infrastructure for integration tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you clarify why you think that?  It is a bit hard to provide
> > > > > answers
> > > > > > to such feedback.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we list use cases the plugin tries to cover? I'd be happy to 
> > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > discussion session if needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe I have listed the main high-level features in my first 
> > > > > > e-mail.
> > > > > > Are you referring to something else?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pierre
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >

Reply via email to