On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Rafael Schloming<[email protected]> wrote: > Martin Ritchie wrote:
>> Agreed, Though I think cleanBroker() needs to be improved as it would >> be good to have the ablity to delete a data set from one of the >> non-running brokers (Meaning we have other brokers running in the >> test). I was thinking of a cluster test scenario where you stop broker >> B and need to ensure it has no current data before you start it up >> again and veify that it regains the cluster state. Not that we have >> clustering in the Java code yet, but given that we can stop and start >> any number of brokers via our tests we should think about how we can >> clear a broker's data directories. > > I do agree it would be nice to have a base test case that provides tests > with explicit control over starting, stoping, and cleaning brokers. The > current cleanBroker() really wasn't intended to be used outside of the way > it currently is inside of QpidTestCase. (In fact it should probably be > private.) Which nicely brings us back to the thing I was trying to address when I started making these changes in the first place - Failover tests need to be able to start and stop two brokers with stores. PeristentStoreTest also needs to do something similar. I'm not sure how I feel about the cleaning the store between each run thing, having options for both is probably handy. - Aidan -- Apache Qpid - AMQP, JMS, other messaging love http://qpid.apache.org "A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
