[rfc][icedtea-web] Refactor of LiveConnect Tests Version 2

[Jiri Vanek]

On 06/18/2014 08:16 PM, Jie Kang wrote:
>>
>> Well you are thinking about the shared code as about some library, which
>> appelts/apps will reuse.
>> That must not happen. The reproducers myust be as isolated as possible.
>>
>
> If you see the first version of Refactor of LiveConnect tests we have reproducers completely isolated. However Omair suggested we start to implement the functionality required to launch single reproducers with their own dependencies with a shared folder.

 From my point of view this functionality is already working via whitelist.

The reason for those indirect dependencies is simplicity of reproducers.

Now you do not need to care about them at all. But the cost is, that you need to wait until all 
reprodcuers are compiled an copied with their resources ro reproducers_deploy_dir.


If this become insufficient,  then I will welcome improving patch, but as separate changesets with 
some final goal. Introducing shared folder for resources in this chnageset have no sense and is 
leaving mayor flaws of engine untouched.

>
> I think the hack to put a single shared file in a dummy test in reproducers/simple is pretty ugly and I would prefer either complete isolation or a designated shared folder,

I agree with you here.

> instead of a small hack just for these tests. Complete Isolation or Shared Properly, in-between seems like a bad idea.

Yes, 100%, but pelase as searate changeset and with discussion how to handle executable dependences.

>
> Maybe another alternative hack is to copy-paste the shared JS into their own JS files and so there aren't any duplicate files (but have lot's of duplicate code).

Please dont.  Please no duplicate code.

Keep it in one of the reproducers, and once it is copied  to deploy dir, all reproducers may have 
benefits from it.


I know that it is against what you have tried to do, but it is how it is supposed to be now.
>
> However I will prepare a patch for your suggested change.
>
>>
>> Even more we are speaking about this,. even more I'm sure the shared dir, as
>> was introduced can nto
>> go in.
>>
>> But Patch, which will add the functionality to lunch single reproducer (and
>> be able to handle its
>> dependeces) may come in as separate (quite a big one I would guess)
>> changeset.
>
> Yes I agree that it should be a separate fix for the test suite but we could make a small start towards this with the shared folder?

Nope. Changesets have to be isolated. This is small hunk of different changeset which have sneeked here.

Again sorry for interrupting well prepared, and well done fix.


J.