> On July 12, 2013, 12:32 a.m., Hari Shreedharan wrote:
> > Jarcec,
> > 
> > This test really does not test if the input data was really split. It only 
> > tests that the input data was received on the other side. We need to ensure 
> > that the data was indeed split and each split was really processed 
> > separately.

That is very good point Hari, thank you for rising this concern. I'll fix that 
shortly.


- Jarek


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/12201/#review23042
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 30, 2013, 6:25 p.m., Jarek Cecho wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/12201/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 30, 2013, 6:25 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Sqoop.
> 
> 
> Bugs: SQOOP-1114
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-1114
> 
> 
> Repository: sqoop-sqoop2
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> I've added new test case that is testing most of splitters available in 
> Generic JDBC Connector. For those tests I've prepared new testing data set 
> that is based on Ubuntu releases and updated junit to version 4.11 for better 
> Parameterized runner.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   pom.xml 8785e01000cc6e7d5a74ffeb96b83d236a657df8 
>   test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/data/UbuntuReleases.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/testcases/ConnectorTestCase.java 
> 6aeadd4e54e47e5644270b15813b2d9c4cedc059 
>   
> test/src/test/java/org/apache/sqoop/integration/connector/jdbc/generic/imports/SplitterTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12201/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 2 out of 4 new tests are currently failing, both appear to be code (and not 
> test) issues, so I've filled SQOOP-1112 and SQOOP-1113 to deal with them 
> separately.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jarek Cecho
> 
>

Reply via email to