ctubbsii commented on PR #42:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo-proxy/pull/42#issuecomment-1317688942

   > But now two other ITs are failing `testSiteConfiguration` and 
`userAuthentication`.
   
   I'm not 100% sure what these two do based on their name, but one of the 
intents when splitting this off into its own repo was try to try to make it 
solely an AccumuloClient for a single user.
   
   So, it should not need to have access to Accumulo's site configuration to 
work. Any attempt to try to make that work, and related tests should be 
removed. It sounds like `testSiteConfiguration` might be related to that.
   
   To operate as a single user, an instance should only need access to a client 
properties file, and should authenticate to Accumulo using credentials stored 
there. We no longer need to provide separate re-authentication mechanisms, like 
a "login" command in the proxy, or anything like that. It should just need to 
do `Accumulo.newClient().from(properties).build()`. So, if the 
`userAuthentication` test tries to do anything else, it might need to be 
updated or removed.
   
   So, if those tests are related to those behavior changes from earlier 
versions, I would not be surprised if they need to be updated, or even removed.
   
   > Also I think logging is broken with this change due to log4j/slf4j 
conflicts.
   
   I think that should be relatively easy to fix, but let me know; I'm willing 
to try to help if it gets tricky.
   
   > I can try to fix and incorporate the things that are broken into this PR 
or, since its already large, and to limit the scope of this PR, merge this as 
is and create follow on tickets for them.
   
   I would create subsequent patches, rather than try to do everything in one.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to