james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Hoffmann ...@byteaction.de>
Subject AW: Back to the unit testing discussion (not emacs, etc.)
Date Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:00:30 GMT
Hi Noel.

See below...

Kind regards


Von: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com] 

Jürgen Hoffmann wrote:

> I think Testing is very important.

So do I.  That's why I added run-unit-tests to the dist target.  And why I
added support for running specific tests during development --- so that they
would be run because it is convenient to do so, rather than skipped because
running them is onerous.

[JH>] this is a good solution.

> I personally dislike partial testing, because you might miss certain
> areas of the code which were affected by a change

As you might have noticed from my discussion with Danny, I agree.  That's
why a dist build includes a clean first and a full run of the test suite.
And why I expressed concern about relying on partial tests based upon
presumed dependencies.

[JH>] I did not, sorry. But now this is clear to me.

> I do not know if it is possible to fake a remote IP while doing local
> connections within Java

We have a full class A subnet (127/8) to play with.  We cannot do the
network configuration portably, nor in Java, but we could:

  loop x:
    loop y:
      loop z:
        UNIX: assign lo:0 to 127.x.y.z
        Java: connect from 127.x.y.z (lo:0) to localhost (lo)

We'd also need a DNS server (or just /etc/hosts) to provide a unique name
for each IP.  I don't know if this is still high on anyone's priority list,
but that's as simple a solution as I've come up with so far.

[JH>] Feasible enough. Do others have an idea on how we could test this
particular leakage automatically?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message