On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 19:34 +0100, Robert Greig wrote: > On 26/09/2007, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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?
This was actually the root of my question. I really think that integrationtests and the unit tests form the client module are very similar. It would therefore be nice to federate all of them and to choose whether they are run against an in-VM broker or against a remote broker. > 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
