Hi,
My problem is due to the fact that spring-dm feature (referenced in the
NMR document feature) is not found.
spring and spring-dm features are provided by karaf.
So, first, I tried to use karaf and nmr feature in the exec unit test:
return options(
profile("log").version("1.4"),
org.ops4j.pax.exam.CoreOptions.systemProperty("org.ops4j.pax.logging.DefaultServiceLog.level").value("DEBUG"),
scanFeatures("mvn:org.apache.felix.karaf/apache-felix-karaf/1.1.0-SNAPSHOT/xml/features","spring-dm/1.2.0"),
scanFeatures("mvn:org.apache.servicemix.nmr/apache-servicemix-nmr/1.1.0-SNAPSHOT/xml/features","jbi/1.1.0-SNAPSHOT"),
felix());
Unfortunately, it doesn't work (pax-runner is already looking for
spring-dm version 0.0.0).
The only way that I found for now is to merge karaf and nmr features
into a single file:
return options(
profile("log").version("1.4"),
org.ops4j.pax.exam.CoreOptions.systemProperty("org.ops4j.pax.logging.DefaultServiceLog.level").value("DEBUG"),
scanFeatures("file:apache-karaf-nmr-1.1.0-SNAPSHOT-features.xml","jbi/1.1.0-SNAPSHOT"),
felix());
Now spring-dm feature is found and pax-runner start felix correctly.
Any idea about this issue ?
Regards
JB
Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi all,
based on this thread discuss, I have:
- add required dependencies in the dependencyManagement of the
components-pom:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/servicemix/components/components-pom/trunk/pom.xml
- begin to use pax-exam in the exec component:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/servicemix/components/engines/servicemix-exec/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/servicemix/exec/itest/smx4/
Unfortunately, I have an issue with the scanFeatures() method of pax-exam.
I would like to deploy JBI feature into a felix instance using pax-exam.
As mentioned by Guillaume, I do:
Option[] options = options(
profile("log").version("1.4"),
org.ops4j.pax.exam.CoreOptions.systemProperty("org.ops4j.pax.logging.DefaultServiceLog.level").value("DEBUG"),
scanFeatures(mavenBundle().groupId("org.apache.servicemix.nmr").artifactId("apache-servicemix-nmr").version("1.1.0-SNAPSHOT").type("xml/features"),
"jbi"), felix());
As jbi feature is versionned, I get this exception in the unit test:
java.lang.RuntimeException:
org.ops4j.pax.runner.provision.ScannerException: Cannot find a feature
named 'jbi' with version '0.0.0'
I'm going to check in the pax-exam source code to see how I can manage
the feature versionning.
I will keep you posted.
Regards
JB
Chris Custine wrote:
Jean-Baptiste suggested in another thread that we consider moving to SMX4
for component testing, and this has also crossed my mind recently so we
thought it bet to start a specific thread to discuss this.
I think it will certainly be a requirement to automate testing of
components
inside SMX4, but there are also some more immediate motivations for doing
this in order to test components with updated dependencies used in SMX4.
After using Pax Exam a bit lately with the SMX4 itests, I am wondering if
that would be a suitable mechanism to test components with SMX4? I think
this would certainly be a more accurate test of integration with the
runtime
than the current tests, although there will possibly be a performance
penalty when running tests due to the more heavyweight nature.
Alternatively, we could bootstrap some smaller chunk of SMX4 in order to
perform more isolated tests without starting a full container.
I am currently leaning towards using Pax Exam because it would provide a
very accurate representation of the component running inside the
container.
This would include deployment and startup lifecycle, interaction with
runtime dependencies, etc. which is slightly more accurate than the
current
tests.
One final question is whether SMX4 provides an adequate test environment
that is reciprocal with SMX3. We have been relying on SMX3 for testing
components that are also deployed in SMX4, so is this also good enough
the
other way around or do we need to keep both? One of the downsides of the
current tests is that many of the components have their own base tests
that
create the appropriate environment in which to test, and I think this has
made the tests harder to maintain. I think one of the goals for this
would
be to make test authoring much easier.
So what are everyone's thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Chris
--
Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
