sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jarek Cecho" <jar...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 38174: SQOOP-2553: Refactor integration test to support embedded jetty server
Date Tue, 08 Sep 2015 10:45:10 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/#review97988
-----------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for taking stab at this one Colin! Would you mind updating thee JIRA with your overall
plan how to make the switch? Something like "firstly we do X, then Y and finally Z". I understand
that current patch is just a first step, but I'm not entirely sure what is "temporal" code
that gets eventually removed and what is already a "final" code.


server/pom.xml (lines 139 - 174)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/#comment154124>

    This is just an interim code before we switch completely to Jetty rather then Tomcat,
right? Would it be fair to assume that this gets completely dropped after SQOOP-910 gets resolved?
    
    If so, let's put such comment here and create subsequent JIRA to drop it? :)



test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/minicluster/JettySqoopMiniCluster.java (lines 63
- 67)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/#comment154125>

    We have NetworkUtils to find next available port:
    
    https://github.com/apache/sqoop/blob/sqoop2/common-test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/common/test/utils/NetworkUtils.java#L55



test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/testcases/BaseTestCase.java (lines 44 - 45)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/#comment154126>

    The "Tomcat" word in the comment is outdated here, right?



test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/testcases/BaseTestCase.java (line 95)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/#comment154127>

    Just for me to understand your approach - it seems that you're planning to keep using
the Tomcat for all integration tests by default and start slowly switching them to Jetty one
by one?



test/src/test/java/org/apache/sqoop/integration/connector/jdbc/generic/PartitionerJettyTest.java
(lines 25 - 32)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/#comment154128>

    Let's switch the original PartitionTest rather then creating derivate classes? Our goal
is to switch purely to jetty anyway, right?


Jarcec

- Jarek Cecho


On Sept. 8, 2015, 7:39 a.m., Colin Ma wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 8, 2015, 7:39 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Sqoop.
> 
> 
> Repository: sqoop-sqoop2
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Add class JettySqoopMiniCluster to support embedded jetty server for integration test.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   pom.xml 6a2d78e 
>   server/pom.xml 59663fa 
>   test/pom.xml 3e11f59 
>   test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/minicluster/JettySqoopMiniCluster.java PRE-CREATION

>   test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/testcases/BaseTestCase.java PRE-CREATION 
>   test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/testcases/ConnectorTestCase.java e3e7bfe 
>   test/src/main/java/org/apache/sqoop/test/testcases/TomcatTestCase.java 666749b 
>   test/src/test/java/org/apache/sqoop/integration/connector/jdbc/generic/PartitionerJettyTest.java
PRE-CREATION 
>   test/src/test/java/org/apache/sqoop/integration/repository/derby/upgrade/DerbyRepositoryUpgradeTest.java
1d5b692 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38174/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Colin Ma
> 
>


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