On 26/09/2007, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Talking about the systest for a moment: > I have converted some tests to use a static so it is easier to point a > single test at a broker. But it would be nice to wrap up the test > connection setup such that we have some form of a BrokerTestCase. > This would take a broker URL and if required starts an inVM broker. > From there we could then get maven to pass the InVM url for build > tests but would also allow us to set the tests to run from maven > against an external broker.
This is an excellent idea. > I would say a first step. would be to separate the tests that use an > invm broker and those that don't. I'm _not_ saying that all invm and > all non_invm test should live together only that they should be > distinguishable. Example: in the systest module AckTest doesn't use an > inVM broker but MandatoryMessageTest does. This first step would help > ensure we can easily identify tests that can run against a broker. Yes, again this makes sense. I would ask which tests should work only on one or the other and not both? Should we not aim for all tests to work in either mode? I know we have found that in-VM actually helps track down some concurrency issue that are harder to find with a network involved. > If no-one else has the time then I'd start the process by putting > together the BrokerTestCase, or at least something we can debate about > :) I don't see a queue of volunteers so I'd say go for it. RG
