The removal is done.
I think I could have found an agreement for free public use of this
shapefile.
(from INSEE : "Rediffusion des produits disponibles sur ce site
Les publications et données mises à disposition sur le présent site sont
consultables et téléchargeables gratuitement ; sauf spécification contraire,
elles peuvent être réutilisées, y compris à des fins commerciales, sans
licence et sans versement de redevances autres que celles collectées par les
sociétés de perception et de répartition des droits d'auteur régies par le
titre II du livre III du code de la propriété intellectuelle ; la
réutilisation est toutefois subordonnée au respect de l'intégrité de
l'information et des données et à la mention précise des sources.").
Its really boring to debate about the source of each test file, especially
when they come from public organizations or gouvernments and are
downloadable freely by everyone, but I understand that you have legacy
quarrels that forces you to take care of everything, even if it causes your
project no to benefit from as much informations sources than others. I want
to see the day where someone will attack any apache project because it has a
file inside his test resources... Really for what checkings are you loosing
time ?!
The file was told to cause a size problem too, so currently the best thing
to do was to delete it. But you see the beginning of my message : I strongly
disagree with this idea.
Because this point raise two problems :
1) Many files that come from open data have a large amout of real case data,
and among this data, you have a lot of interresting cases. For example,
DEPARTEMENT.SHP shapefile had a the Finistere Departement inside, a feature
created with a three-part polygon.
Useful to challenge some displays or calculations. The size of the file was
only 3 MB. An update or a pull return it in 0.1 seconds for anyone having an
ADSL connection.
The one who will want to do these testings will have to create himself a
Shapefile, I think. Thanks.
2) We may have test that would took a great time to execute. We should
create another profile calling failsafe instead of surefire to execute
integration-test from time to time, and perform them.
I encountered often this problem among the team I am working in : if there
is 100 tests running in 1m30s seconds globally, one will do
a -DskipTests=true (when you don't find an @Ignore on your test or its whole
source code put into comments), one other will find a way to make the
surefire module declare that some tests "has been already run, no need to
reattempt". I encountered this behavior within the projects "Skipping
execution of surefire because it has already been run for this
configuration", and its tricking because when you change a module, you might
have to do a clean to be sure that your tests will run. I was really
surprised to see that. It's unsafe and it trapped me already.
The allowed duration of unit tests is 0 second x 100 tests = 10 seconds.
Only in-memory tests, nothing else. If the test uses : any file, any
external resource, any building that takes time, it has no more to
classified as an unit test. Else, as you did, you attempt to discard tests
one way or another because you are feeling (and you are right) that they
took too much time for the only mvn clean install that you just want to do.
Any test that takes more than 0 second should by run by failsafe at demand
by a :
mvn integration-test
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
<artifactId>maven-failsafe-plugin</artifactId>
<version>${maven-surefire-plugin.version}</version>
<executions>
<execution>
<id>integration-test</id>
<goals>
<goal>integration-test</goal>
<goal>verify</goal>
</goals>
</execution>
</executions>
<configuration>
<skipTests>${skip.integration.tests}</skipTests>
</configuration>
</plugin>
(you set a way to prefix your integration tests by IT instead of Test, for
example)
3) It's really to stay on your project, Martin.
You are nearly the only commiter on it since one year.
How can it gather new people to help if you are always refusing everything ?
Regards,
Marc.
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Martin Desruisseaux
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 4:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: License of new test Shapefiles?
Le 20/11/15 15:26, Marc LE BIHAN a écrit :
The best thing I have to do is to remove these files soon and adapt the
test with another existing dbf file.
Thanks!
Martin
