metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Leet <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Full-dev role in PR testign
Date Thu, 02 May 2019 01:26:14 GMT
> My impression is that this is already the status quo. But, if we think we
> need to be more clear on this, let's put up a vote to change the coding
> guidelines and PR checklist. I've done this many times in the past, the
> most obvious instances are when I've made doc changes or unit test
> modifications because those will not impact full dev. I will own this item.
> I think it can probably get rolled in with my dev guideline changes for
> architecture diagrams.

For completeness in our PR checklist: "- [ ] Have you verified the basic
functionality of the build by building and running locally with Vagrant
full-dev environment or the equivalent?"  In practice, you're right, but
any newer contributors aren't necessarily going to know this.

1. I think we should create Jiras with the end deliverable being that our
> private vs public API endpoints are clearly delineated. From there, we
> create another round of javadoc - for the public APIs let the javadocs rain
> from the heavens to your heart's content. It's for public consumption and
> should assist end users. See Mockito, for example -
> .
> For developer docs, I'm of the *extremely strong* opinion that this should
> be limited. Emphasize module, package, class, and method naming conventions
> over all else. If it doesn't make sense just reading the code, take a
> minute to summarize what you're doing and consider refactoring. For
> legitimately more complex and necessary code passages, add a note. For
> multi-class interactions that provide a larger story arc, add dev docs to
> the relevant READMEs. Our use of Zookeeper Curator and its interaction with
> our topology config loading is a perfect example of a feature that would
> fit this need.
2. I'm an immediate -1 on any documentation that looks like " /** Open the
> car door **/ public void openCarDoor() {...}" :-). The code speaks for
> itself.
> 3. Publish javadocs for public APIs, not our internal dev APIs. Let your
> fav IDE fill in the gaps for devs.

I'm +1 on delineating public vs private APIs like you've outlined there.  I
think our dev stuff is *better* than our general usage guides, but there's
room for improvement. I'm fairly agnostic on the dev docs because to be
honest, a ton of our older code is not at all self explanatory, and to be
blunt refactoring a lot of it is a substantial lift (as we've all seen
multiple times trying to refactor it).  If this were greenfield, I'd be in
much stronger agreement with you, but I suspect in practice there's a lot
of stuff nobody's going to refactor for awhile.

> Full dev until we vote to replace the existing setup and can be confident
> that the new approach 1. is stable, 2. takes <= the amount of time to
> complete as full dev. I am +1 for migrating towards this approach and think
> we should do so when it's dialed in.

Great, I look forward to that getting in.

Justin, what are your thoughts on leveraging this approach along with
> long-lived Docker containers?

Apparently, there's actually an extension for running Docker containers,
see  My main hesitation there
is more around how much effort to migrate it is. I think that's almost
certainly a cleaner long term solution, but I suspect the 80% solution of
migrating what we have *might* be easier.  There might also be ways of just
leveraging this by moving stuff over to failsafe from surefire, but I
really don't know enough about it.

 Clean/reset component state after test method and/or test class
>    completion

Probably doable regardless of approach, but things can take nontrivial
amounts of time to clean up (e.g. topic deletion or clearing). I believe we
do this right now, so I'd expect to continue with that.

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 8:48 PM Michael Miklavcic <> wrote:

> Justin, what are your thoughts on leveraging this approach along with
> long-lived Docker containers? I think the lifecycle would look like:
>    1. I need components A, B, C
>    2. If not started, start A, B, C
>    3. If started, clean/reset it
>    4. Setup pre-test state
>    5. Run test(s)
>    6. Clean/reset component state after test method and/or test class
>    completion (we may consider nuking this step - I assisted in designing
> an
>    acceptance testing framework in the past where we handled cleanup on the
>    front end. This meant that remediation for failed tests became simpler
>    because I still had the state from the failed test run)
> Stopping/removing the containers could be a manual process or just a simple
> script in the project root. We could also add a special module that runs
> last that handles shutting down containers, if desired.
> I know this has been a perennial thread for us. I can dig up the original
> discuss threads on this as well if folks think they're still pertinent, but
> I think we're pretty far removed now from that original point in time and
> should just move forward with fresh perspectives.
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:21 AM Justin Leet <> wrote:
> > Re: the integration testing point above, a strategy I used recently to
> > alleviate a similar problem was to exploit JUnit 5's extensions.  I
> haven't
> > played with this at all in Metron's code, so 1) Take this with a several
> > grains of salt and 2) Feel encouraged to point out anything
> > wrong/problematic/ludicrous.  My use case was pretty tame and easy to
> > implement.
> >
> > Essentially, you can set up an extension backed by a singleton cluster
> (in
> > the case I was doing, I had two extensions, one for a Kafka cluster and
> one
> > for MiniDfs).  The backing clusters expose some methods (i.e. create
> topic,
> > get brokers, get file system, etc.), which lets the tests classes setup
> > whatever they need. Classes that need them just use an annotation and can
> > be setup under the hood to init only when tests in the current run suite
> > actually use them and spin down after all are done. This saved ~1 min on
> a
> > 4 minute build.  It ends up being a pretty clean way to use them,
> although
> > we might need to be a bit more sophisticated, since my case was less
> > complicated. The main messiness is that this necessarily invites tests to
> > interfere with each other (i.e. if multiple tests use the kafka topic
> > "test", problems will be involved). We might be able to improve on this.
> >
> > We could likely do something similar with our InMemoryComponents. Right
> now
> > these are spun up on a per-test basis, rather than the overall suite.
> This
> > involves some setup in any class that wants them, just to be able to get
> a
> > cluster.  There's also some definition of spin up order and so on, which
> is
> > already taken care of with the extensions (declaration order).  The other
> > catch in our case is that we have way more code covered by JUnit 4, which
> > doesn't have the same capabilities.  That migration doesn't necessarily
> > have to be done all at once, but it is a potential substantial pain
> point.
> >
> > Basically, I'd hope to push management of our abstraction further back
> into
> > actual JUnit so they're get more reuse across runs and it's easily
> > understood what a test needs and uses right up front.  In our case, the
> > InMemoryComponents likely map to extensions.
> >
> > If we did something like this, it potentially solves a few problems
> > * Makes it easy to build an integration test that says "Give me these
> > components".
> > * Keeps it alive across any test that needs them
> > * Only spins it up if there are tests running that do need them. Only
> spins
> > up the necessary components.
> > * Lower our build times.
> > * Interaction with components remains primarily through the same methods
> > you'd normally interact (you can build producers/consumers, or whatever).
> > * IMO, easier to explain and have people use.  I've had a couple people
> > pretty easily pick up on it.
> >
> > I can't share the code, but essentially it looks like (And I'm sure email
> > will butcher this, so I'm sorry in advance):
> > @ExtendWith({<ExtensionOne.class, ExtensionTwo.class, ...})
> > ...
> > @BeforeAll
> > public static void beforeAll() {
> >    // Test specific setup, similar to before. But without the cluster
> > creation work.
> > }
> >
> > Everything else gets handled under the covers, with the caveat that what
> I
> > needed to do was less involved than some of our tests, so there may be
> some
> > experimenting.
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:59 AM Justin Leet <>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I wanted to start a discussion on something near and dear to all of our
> > > hearts: The role of full-dev in our testing cycle.
> > >
> > > Right now, we require all PRs to have spun up the full-dev environment
> > and
> > > make sure that things flow through properly. In some cases, this is a
> > > necessity, and in other cases, it's a fairly large burden on current
> and
> > > potential contributors.
> > >
> > > So what do we need to do to reduce our dependence on full dev and
> > increase
> > > our confidence in our CI process?
> > >
> > > My initial thoughts on this encompass a few things
> > > * Increasing our ability to easily write automated tests. In
> particular,
> > I
> > > think our integration testing is fairly hard and has some structural
> > issues
> > > (e.g. our tests spin up components per Test class, not for the overall
> > test
> > > suite being run, which also increases build times, etc.). How do we
> make
> > > this easier and have less boilerplate?  I have one potential idea I'll
> > > reply to this thread with.
> > > * Unit tests in general. I'd argue that any area we thing need full-dev
> > > spun up to be confident in needs more testing. Does anyone have any
> > > opinions on which areas we have the least confidence in?  Which areas
> of
> > > code are people afraid to touch?
> > > * Our general procedures. Should we not be requiring full-dev on all
> PRs,
> > > but maybe just asking for a justification why not (e.g. "I don't need
> > > full-dev for this, because I added unit tests here and here and
> > integration
> > > tests for the these components?"). And then a reviewer can request a
> > > full-dev spin up if needed?  Could we stage this rollout (e.g.
> > > metron-platform modules require it, but others don't, etc.?) This'll
> add
> > > more pressure onto the release phase, so maybe that involves fleshing
> > out a
> > > checklist of critical path items to check.
> > > * Do we need to improve our docs? Publish Javadocs? After all, if docs
> > are
> > > better, hopefully we'd see less issues introduced and be more confident
> > in
> > > changes coming in.
> > > * What environment do we even want testing to occur in?
> > > has seen a lot of work, and
> > > getting it across the finish line may help make the dev environment
> less
> > > onerous, even if still needed.
> > >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message