If there's a mock httpserver utility, which could assert whether
receieved
http request is correct, and could generate customized http output,
it can
be called "little jetty". If the utility httpserver could customize
output
more flexibility, could make some unspecial output which jetty couldn't,
it
could be called "enhanced jetty". Finally, the utility class will
have to
implement http protocol and become an HttpSrever or
EnhanceedHttpServer(since it could do some extra work, e.g, produce
broken
http response, etc.).
"So we have to develop mock server anyway. And the mock server can be
used
for other ('positive') tests. Right? Then why we have to use jetty?"
If there's a mock server utility can be easily used for normal and
abnormal
http test, I've no objection to use it.
At least, we have one in common: reduce external dependency. Right?
Thanks.
On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5/23/06, Andrew Zhang wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Stepan,
> >
> > "With mock objects this can be done with no problems and HARMONY-164
> > demonstrates the possible way."
> >
> > Shall we write a mock http server for each case? It takes lots of
> > reduplicate efforts and results in many mock http server classes in
the
> > end.
>
>
> No we shouldn't write a mock http server for each case (I mean that we
> need
> not implement http protocol each time). In "HARMONY-164 version" mock
> server
> is an instance of class that extends Thread class. The mock server is
> started before running test and by default is just listens for
incoming
> connection. A test has access to server's instance and may
configure it
> response (I didn't implemented but it is also possible to save request
to
> be
> verified). There is no http protocol implementation.
>
> In fact, for many regular tests, jetty works fine.
> >
> > And I also agree that for negative tests and some other special
tests
> > which
> > jetty could not satisfy , we should use mock http server instead.
>
>
> So we have to develop mock server anyway. And the mock server can be
used
> for other ('positive') tests. Right? Then why we have to use jetty?
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
>
> What's your opnion?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On 5/23/06, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi George, Tim
> > >
> > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > 1) Configuring
> > > As I understood we say that the server is 'embedded' when we can
> > > start/stop
> > > it within Ant without additional configuration steps. And all we
need
> to
> > > do
> > > is just download required jars. Right?
> > >
> > > What about Eclipse users?
> > >
> > > 2) Time to run test suite
> > > May be it is hard to estimate but anyway - will the test suite run
> slow
> > > down
> > > if we'll use jetty instead of mock objects? How much?
> > >
> > > 3) Testing
> > > Quoting Tim from 'local server thread': "There is no way to
force a
> > server
> > > to send you a chunked response using regular HTTP headers, so in
this
> > case
> > > the server and client have an understanding that when the client
asks
> > for
> > > a
> > > particular resource the server will send it back in chunks."
> > >
> > > With mock objects this can be done with no problems and
HARMONY-164
> > > demonstrates the possible way. Also are we going to create
negative
> > tests,
> > > for example, for broken server response? I think yes. Can jetty
server
> > be
> > > used for negative testing?
> > >
> > > See other comments below
> > >
> > > On 5/22/06, George Harley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > > > On 5/19/06, Tim Ellison wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Stepan Mishura wrote:
> > > > >> <snip>
> > > > >> > I'm OK only if we separate tests with Jetty from common
test
> > suite
> > > > >> run.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Because each external dependency complicates 'normal' test
suite
> run
> > (
> > > I
> > > > > don't want to face with situation when to run Harmony test
suite
I
> > > > > have to
> > > > > configure and run 20 different external servers even they are
easy
> > > > > configurable). As far as I remember we agreed to use mock
objects
> -
> > so
> > > > > let's
> > > > > use them! For example, in this case there is no need in jetty
> > server.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not against 'jetty based tests' but I'd prefer to separate
> such
> > > > > tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Stepan.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Stepan,
> > > >
> > > > Just seen this note and think that my previous append on the
"Re:
> svn
> > > > commit: r407752" thread sums up my thoughts. Allow me to quote
> myself:
> > > >
> > > > <paste>
> > > > Jetty or equivalent is a good basis for such local server stubs.
It
> is
> > > > fast, it is lightweight,
> > >
> > >
> > > Fast and lightweight as what?
> > > I saw sometimes ago java server that has jar size 4k. And
> > > jetty-6.0.0beta6.jar is 423k size.
> > >
> > >
> > > > it can be started and stopped very simply from
> > > > within Ant (so that it only runs for the duration of a specified
> batch
> > > > of unit tests) and may also be completely controlled from Java
test
> > code
> > > > so that we can configure its behaviour for any test case from
within
> > > > that test case.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good.
> > >
> > > It's architecture means that we do not have to run it as
> > > > a complete web server but can stub out any aspect of its runtime
> > > > behaviour we wish in order to suit the purposes of the test(s).
> > >
> > >
> > > What about 'chunked response'? Can a testcase force jetty
server to
> send
> > > it
> > > a chunked response?
> > >
> > > I don't really understand why such network tests making use of a
> small,
> > > > embedded server running locally would need to be considered as
> outside
> > > > of the "normal test flow".
> > > > </paste>
> > >
> > >
> > > Because I consider adding jetty server as precedent for adding
other
> > > dependencies to the "normal test flow". I believe that "normal
test
> > flow"
> > > should be fast and lightweight as much as possible. Each
additional
> > > dependency or configuration step adds a brick(even it light) to
> > > developer's
> > > large. As the result classlib test suite may become very slow and
hard
> > to
> > > configure. All I want is to understand - do we really need jetty
> server
> > > inside it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stepan.
> > >
> > > We are not talking about an external server here and we are not
> talking
> > > > about developers having to carry out complex configuration
> manoeuvres
> > > > when running the tests. That is something that nobody wants. The
> > > > motivation here is purely to get more of the java.net tests
out of
> the
> > > > "excludes" sin bin.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > George
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >> Tim
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > > > >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
