qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Schloming <rafa...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Multiple broker control in QpidTestCase (was Re: svn commit: r791954 - /qpid/trunk/qpid/java/systests/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/test/utils/FailoverBaseCase.java)
Date Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:11:04 GMT
Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Rafael Schloming<rafaels@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Martin Ritchie wrote:
>>> Agreed, Though I think cleanBroker() needs to be improved as it would
>>> be good to have the ablity to delete a data set from one of the
>>> non-running brokers (Meaning we have other brokers running in the
>>> test). I was thinking of a cluster test scenario where you stop broker
>>> B and need to ensure it has no current data before you start it up
>>> again and veify that it regains the cluster state. Not that we have
>>> clustering in the Java code yet, but given that we can stop and start
>>> any number of brokers via our tests we should think about how we can
>>> clear a broker's data directories.
>> I do agree it would be nice to have a base test case that provides tests
>> with explicit control over starting, stoping, and cleaning brokers. The
>> current cleanBroker() really wasn't intended to be used outside of the way
>> it currently is inside of QpidTestCase. (In fact it should probably be
>> private.)
> Which nicely brings us back to the thing I was trying to address when
> I started making these changes in the first place - Failover tests
> need to be able to start and stop two brokers with stores.
> PeristentStoreTest also needs to do something similar.

Don't the failover tests already do this?


Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org

View raw message