I was thinking the same. We should probably also extend arquillian/arquillian-tomee-tests to also run on the microprofile flavor, but of course that increases the build time too. I'd be in favor of some profiles to help us pick what to build and test to optimize our cycles.
Jon On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:57 PM Roberto Cortez <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I’ve finally started the work to add MP support to TomEE Plus (and then > Plume). > > Is not really that hard. My only question here is about adding separate > runs of the MP TCK to each TomEE flavour: > > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/270/commits/2c51e9cd4e5c1419e5d2f1f311c5d900eb58cbcb > < > https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/270/commits/2c51e9cd4e5c1419e5d2f1f311c5d900eb58cbcb > > > > As is, MP TCK takes almost 1 hour (depending on the box). We may be able > to cut that significantly with Bruno's work around executing Arquillian > tests in parallel. Another option would be to drop the fork execution and > do it in a single VM. Unfortunately, from my experience trying to do that, > some tests do not cleanup properly and then fail, so having the test fork > was the only reliable way to execute them properly. > > By adding the other TomEE flavours in the TCK run, we are potentially > looking in a 2 hour increase of the test build. Maybe we can leave this > optional in a profile to run with the other flavours and leave just TomEE > MP as the default container to run the TCK. > > Any thoughts? > > Cheers, > Roberto
