[rfc] [icedtea-web] blacklist for reproducers

Omair Majid omajid at redhat.com
Fri Apr 13 14:54:19 PDT 2012


On 04/12/2012 01:37 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 06:39 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 08:05 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> * jnlp_testengine renamed to testsExtensions, and remains in tests
>>> directory
>>
>> This is probably going into the area of bikeshedding, but I feel the
>> current name is better. Looking at existing names, I would be happy with
>> jnlp-test-engine (jnlp-test-runner, or maybe even jnlp-runner).
>>
> But this is not true. The runner is still junit-runner and nothing else.
> The content of jnlp_testengine is currently nothing more then dummy
> implementation of http server, and set of methods which make work with
> this server easy.
> And what is it else then junit extension, if it set of util methods for
> running this server executing process, wrapping those two into launching
> some jnlp/html file upon this server in javaws/browser process?
> And if some more functionalities (annotations in short term) will come,
> then it will be more and more set of..."extensions"... then just engine
> launching jnlp files.
> Another issue here is that also html files are launched now. I would
> like (at least)  to get rid of jnlp from name.
> Yes, this is bikeshedding but i do not want to make some more
> refactoring in close future.

I meant my suggestions were bikeshedding :)

If you are okay with it, let's go with test-extensions.

>>>>> 1) move all tests from tests/netx/jnlp_testsengine to tests/netx/unit
>>>>> where they belongs IMHO
>>>>
>>>> A slightly different approach might be to move jnlp_testsengine itself
>>>> to a top level directory in icedtea-web.
>>>
>>> Hmhm. I'm against top level directory. Overall - it is still just for
>>> testing, so it should stay in tests. Also there is eg junit-runner in
>>> tests. Those two subdirectories (junit-runner and testsExtensions)
>>> should be on same level.
>>
>> My reasoning for moving it to a top level directory is that it needs
>> tests, while junit-runner doesn't :)
> 
> Can I ignore this reason as you wrote on the top of this email? O:)
> /me hopes he does  not to sounds impolitely

Yes, you can ignore it :)

>> I think it would make sense to run it when we build jnlp_testengine.
>> This ensure that the jnlp_testengine just built works as expected.
>>
> Do you really want to have one more tests run? Already now I need to
> keep en eye on 3 test-runs results (pac, unittests,reproducers runs)
> I do not mind to have them where are they now (run with reproducers) or
> to move them to unittests-run, but I'm against third separate run.
> But your sentence you moved me more to keep them where they are - with
> reproducers.
> If I can use my right-of-veto you granted me in headline, then they will
> stay where they are.

I think we may be saying the same thing :)

Before you run the reproducers, you run the tests for the
jnlp_testengine, right? This is what I am saying too - we want to test
the jnlp_testengine before we actually use it.

It would be cleaner if it were a separate target and everything, but
it's not too bad as long as the jnlp_testengine is tested before we use
it to run tests.

Cheers,
Omair



More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list