Github user markap14 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/3100#discussion_r232267315
--- Diff:
nifi-commons/nifi-utils/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/stream/io/RepeatingInputStream.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
+ * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
+ * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
+ * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
+ * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
+ * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+package org.apache.nifi.stream.io;
+
+import java.io.ByteArrayInputStream;
+import java.io.IOException;
+import java.io.InputStream;
+import java.util.Objects;
+
+public class RepeatingInputStream extends InputStream {
--- End diff --
@patricker sorry - thanks for pinging! We don't know that we are trying to
avoid `@Ignore`d tests in general necessarily. What we are trying to avoid is
marking tests as `@Ignore` as a "solution" to tests that intermittently fail.
Instead, those tests need to be fixed or deleted. Having a test that is
intended to be run manually to test performance before & after a change is a
common pattern that we follow throughout the codebase. Some people also have
marked these types of tests as Integration Tests instead of unit tests, but I
think that's a bad idea, as it's not truly an integration test. I'm sure there
are better ways to handle this, but for the time being I would assert that it
is common practice and don't believe it's unfavorable.
re: the presence of the RepeatingInputStream. I do understand your
temptation to remove it. The reason that I suggest we keep it, though, is that
there have been many times that it would have been helpful but was not
available so I used only a small bit of data in tests. I do think there are
others tests in the codebase that could be updated to use this, as well. I'm
not hell-bent on this, though, so if you still feel it should be removed, say
the word and i'll push a commit that removes it.
Thanks for the review!
---
