The swiftfs tests need only to run if there's a target filesystem; copying
the s3/s3n tests, something like

  <property>
    <name>test.fs.swift.name</name>
    <value>swift://your-object-store-herel/</value>
  </property>

How does one actually go about making junit tests optional in mvn-land?
Should the probe/skip logic be in the code -which can make people think the
test passed when it didn't actually run? Or can I turn it on/off in maven?

-steve

One approach we've taken in the past is making the junit test skip
itself when some precondition is not true.  Then, we often create a
property which people can use to cause the skipped tests to become a
hard error.

For example, all the tests that rely on libhadoop start with these lines:

> @Test
> public void myTest() {
>    Assume.assumeTrue(NativeCodeLoader.isNativeCodeLoaded());
>   ...
> }

This causes them to be silently skipped when libhadoop.so is not
available or loaded (perhaps because it hasn't been built.)

However, if you want to cause this to be a hard error, you simply run
> mvn test -Drequire.test.libhadoop

See TestHdfsNativeCodeLoader.java to see how this is implemented.

The main idea is that your Jenkins build slaves use all the -Drequire
lines, but people running tests locally are not inconvenienced by the
need to build libhadoop.so in every case.  This is especially good
because libhadoop.so isn't known to build on certain platforms like
AIX, etc.  It seems to be a good tradeoff so far.  I imagine that s3
could do something similar.

cheers,
Colin
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The swiftfs tests need only to run if there's a target filesystem; copying
> the s3/s3n tests, something like
>
>   <property>
>     <name>test.fs.swift.name</name>
>     <value>swift://your-object-store-herel/</value>
>   </property>
>
> How does one actually go about making junit tests optional in mvn-land?
> Should the probe/skip logic be in the code -which can make people think the
> test passed when it didn't actually run? Or can I turn it on/off in maven?
>
> -steve

thanks, I'l; have a look. I've always wanted to add the notion of skipped
to test runs -all the way through to the XML and generated reports, but
you'd have to do a new junit runner for this and tweak the reporting code.
Which, if it involved going near maven source, is not something I am
prepared to do

On 14 December 2012 18:57, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One approach we've taken in the past is making the junit test skip
> itself when some precondition is not true.  Then, we often create a
> property which people can use to cause the skipped tests to become a
> hard error.
>
> For example, all the tests that rely on libhadoop start with these lines:
>
> > @Test
> > public void myTest() {
> >    Assume.assumeTrue(NativeCodeLoader.isNativeCodeLoaded());
> >   ...
> > }
>
> This causes them to be silently skipped when libhadoop.so is not
> available or loaded (perhaps because it hasn't been built.)
>
> However, if you want to cause this to be a hard error, you simply run
> > mvn test -Drequire.test.libhadoop
>
> See TestHdfsNativeCodeLoader.java to see how this is implemented.
>
> The main idea is that your Jenkins build slaves use all the -Drequire
> lines, but people running tests locally are not inconvenienced by the
> need to build libhadoop.so in every case.  This is especially good
> because libhadoop.so isn't known to build on certain platforms like
> AIX, etc.  It seems to be a good tradeoff so far.  I imagine that s3
> could do something similar.
>
> cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The swiftfs tests need only to run if there's a target filesystem;
> copying
> > the s3/s3n tests, something like
> >
> >   <property>
> >     <name>test.fs.swift.name</name>
> >     <value>swift://your-object-store-herel/</value>
> >   </property>
> >
> > How does one actually go about making junit tests optional in mvn-land?
> > Should the probe/skip logic be in the code -which can make people think
> the
> > test passed when it didn't actually run? Or can I turn it on/off in
> maven?
> >
> > -steve
>

There are some tests like the S3 tests that end with "Test" (e.g.
Jets3tNativeS3FileSystemContractTest) - unlike normal tests which
start with "Test". Only those that start with "Test" are run
automatically (see the surefire configuration in
hadoop-project/pom.xml). You have to run the others manually with "mvn
test -Dtest=...".

The mechanism that Colin describes is probably better though, since
the environment-specific tests can be run as a part of a full test run
by Jenkins if configured appropriately.

Tom

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks, I'l; have a look. I've always wanted to add the notion of skipped
> to test runs -all the way through to the XML and generated reports, but
> you'd have to do a new junit runner for this and tweak the reporting code.
> Which, if it involved going near maven source, is not something I am
> prepared to do
>
> On 14 December 2012 18:57, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> One approach we've taken in the past is making the junit test skip
>> itself when some precondition is not true.  Then, we often create a
>> property which people can use to cause the skipped tests to become a
>> hard error.
>>
>> For example, all the tests that rely on libhadoop start with these lines:
>>
>> > @Test
>> > public void myTest() {
>> >    Assume.assumeTrue(NativeCodeLoader.isNativeCodeLoaded());
>> >   ...
>> > }
>>
>> This causes them to be silently skipped when libhadoop.so is not
>> available or loaded (perhaps because it hasn't been built.)
>>
>> However, if you want to cause this to be a hard error, you simply run
>> > mvn test -Drequire.test.libhadoop
>>
>> See TestHdfsNativeCodeLoader.java to see how this is implemented.
>>
>> The main idea is that your Jenkins build slaves use all the -Drequire
>> lines, but people running tests locally are not inconvenienced by the
>> need to build libhadoop.so in every case.  This is especially good
>> because libhadoop.so isn't known to build on certain platforms like
>> AIX, etc.  It seems to be a good tradeoff so far.  I imagine that s3
>> could do something similar.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > The swiftfs tests need only to run if there's a target filesystem;
>> copying
>> > the s3/s3n tests, something like
>> >
>> >   <property>
>> >     <name>test.fs.swift.name</name>
>> >     <value>swift://your-object-store-herel/</value>
>> >   </property>
>> >
>> > How does one actually go about making junit tests optional in mvn-land?
>> > Should the probe/skip logic be in the code -which can make people think
>> the
>> > test passed when it didn't actually run? Or can I turn it on/off in
>> maven?
>> >
>> > -steve
>>

On 17 December 2012 16:06, Tom White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There are some tests like the S3 tests that end with "Test" (e.g.
> Jets3tNativeS3FileSystemContractTest) - unlike normal tests which
> start with "Test". Only those that start with "Test" are run
> automatically (see the surefire configuration in
> hadoop-project/pom.xml). You have to run the others manually with "mvn
> test -Dtest=...".
>
> The mechanism that Colin describes is probably better though, since
> the environment-specific tests can be run as a part of a full test run
> by Jenkins if configured appropriately.
>

I'd like that -though one problem with the current system is that you need
to get the s3 (and soon: openstack) credentials into
src/test/resources/core-site.xml, which isn't the right approach. If we
could get them into properties files things would be easier.

another tactic could be to have specific test projects: test-s3,
test-openstack, test-... which contain nothing but test cases. You'd set
jenkins up those test projects too -the reason for having the separate
names is to make it blatantly clear which tests you've not run

That's overkill for adding a few more openstack tests -but I would like to
make it easier to turn those and the rackspace ones without sticking my
secrets into an XML file under SCM

> Tom
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > thanks, I'l; have a look. I've always wanted to add the notion of skipped
> > to test runs -all the way through to the XML and generated reports, but
> > you'd have to do a new junit runner for this and tweak the reporting
> code.
> > Which, if it involved going near maven source, is not something I am
> > prepared to do
> >
> > On 14 December 2012 18:57, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> One approach we've taken in the past is making the junit test skip
> >> itself when some precondition is not true.  Then, we often create a
> >> property which people can use to cause the skipped tests to become a
> >> hard error.
> >>
> >> For example, all the tests that rely on libhadoop start with these
> lines:
> >>
> >> > @Test
> >> > public void myTest() {
> >> >    Assume.assumeTrue(NativeCodeLoader.isNativeCodeLoaded());
> >> >   ...
> >> > }
> >>
> >> This causes them to be silently skipped when libhadoop.so is not
> >> available or loaded (perhaps because it hasn't been built.)
> >>
> >> However, if you want to cause this to be a hard error, you simply run
> >> > mvn test -Drequire.test.libhadoop
> >>
> >> See TestHdfsNativeCodeLoader.java to see how this is implemented.
> >>
> >> The main idea is that your Jenkins build slaves use all the -Drequire
> >> lines, but people running tests locally are not inconvenienced by the
> >> need to build libhadoop.so in every case.  This is especially good
> >> because libhadoop.so isn't known to build on certain platforms like
> >> AIX, etc.  It seems to be a good tradeoff so far.  I imagine that s3
> >> could do something similar.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Colin
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > The swiftfs tests need only to run if there's a target filesystem;
> >> copying
> >> > the s3/s3n tests, something like
> >> >
> >> >   <property>
> >> >     <name>test.fs.swift.name</name>
> >> >     <value>swift://your-object-store-herel/</value>
> >> >   </property>
> >> >
> >> > How does one actually go about making junit tests optional in
> mvn-land?
> >> > Should the probe/skip logic be in the code -which can make people
> think
> >> the
> >> > test passed when it didn't actually run? Or can I turn it on/off in
> >> maven?
> >> >
> >> > -steve
> >>
>

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17 December 2012 16:06, Tom White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There are some tests like the S3 tests that end with "Test" (e.g.
>> Jets3tNativeS3FileSystemContractTest) - unlike normal tests which
>> start with "Test". Only those that start with "Test" are run
>> automatically (see the surefire configuration in
>> hadoop-project/pom.xml). You have to run the others manually with "mvn
>> test -Dtest=...".
>>
>> The mechanism that Colin describes is probably better though, since
>> the environment-specific tests can be run as a part of a full test run
>> by Jenkins if configured appropriately.
>>
>
> I'd like that -though one problem with the current system is that you need
> to get the s3 (and soon: openstack) credentials into
> src/test/resources/core-site.xml, which isn't the right approach. If we
> could get them into properties files things would be easier.
> That's overkill for adding a few more openstack tests -but I would like to
> make it easier to turn those and the rackspace ones without sticking my
> secrets into an XML file under SCM

I think the way to go is to have one XML file include another.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="configuration.xsl"?>
<configuration xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude">
  <property>
     <name>boring.config.1</name>
     <value>boring-value</value>
     ... etc, etc...
  <xi:include href="../secret-stuff.xml" />
</configuration>

That way, you can keep the boring configuration under version control,
and still have your password sitting in a small separate
non-version-controlled XML file.

We use this trick a bunch with the HA configuration stuff-- 99% of the
configuration is the same between the Active and Standby Namenodes,
but you can't give them the same dfs.ha.namenode.id or dfs.name.dir.
Includes help a lot here.

> another tactic could be to have specific test projects: test-s3,
> test-openstack, test-... which contain nothing but test cases. You'd set
> jenkins up those test projects too -the reason for having the separate
> names is to make it blatantly clear which tests you've not run

I dunno.  Every time a project puts unit or system tests into a
separate project, the developers never run them.  I've seen it happen
enough times that I think I can call it an anti-pattern by now.  I
like having tests alongside the code-- to the maximum extent that is
possible.

cheers,
Colin

>
>
>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > thanks, I'l; have a look. I've always wanted to add the notion of skipped
>> > to test runs -all the way through to the XML and generated reports, but
>> > you'd have to do a new junit runner for this and tweak the reporting
>> code.
>> > Which, if it involved going near maven source, is not something I am
>> > prepared to do
>> >
>> > On 14 December 2012 18:57, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> One approach we've taken in the past is making the junit test skip
>> >> itself when some precondition is not true.  Then, we often create a
>> >> property which people can use to cause the skipped tests to become a
>> >> hard error.
>> >>
>> >> For example, all the tests that rely on libhadoop start with these
>> lines:
>> >>
>> >> > @Test
>> >> > public void myTest() {
>> >> >    Assume.assumeTrue(NativeCodeLoader.isNativeCodeLoaded());
>> >> >   ...
>> >> > }
>> >>
>> >> This causes them to be silently skipped when libhadoop.so is not
>> >> available or loaded (perhaps because it hasn't been built.)
>> >>
>> >> However, if you want to cause this to be a hard error, you simply run
>> >> > mvn test -Drequire.test.libhadoop
>> >>
>> >> See TestHdfsNativeCodeLoader.java to see how this is implemented.
>> >>
>> >> The main idea is that your Jenkins build slaves use all the -Drequire
>> >> lines, but people running tests locally are not inconvenienced by the
>> >> need to build libhadoop.so in every case.  This is especially good

On 18 December 2012 09:05, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> I think the way to go is to have one XML file include another.
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="configuration.xsl"?>
> <configuration xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude">
>   <property>
>      <name>boring.config.1</name>
>      <value>boring-value</value>
>      ... etc, etc...
>   <xi:include href="../secret-stuff.xml" />
> </configuration>
>
> That way, you can keep the boring configuration under version control,
> and still have your password sitting in a small separate
> non-version-controlled XML file.
>
> We use this trick a bunch with the HA configuration stuff-- 99% of the
> configuration is the same between the Active and Standby Namenodes,
> but you can't give them the same dfs.ha.namenode.id or dfs.name.dir.
> Includes help a lot here.
>
> I like this approach -we could even have xi:fallback within the include
element to say "include this other file if nothing is checked in".

the default, checked in, -site.xml could then go

<xi:include href="../custom-stuff.xml><xi:fallback href="../empty.xml"
/></xi:include>

I'll try this on my tests to see how well it holds up, because if it does
work it is something to consider checking in. (Yes, I know xinclude isn't
there 100% of the time client side, but that's not going to happen on test
runs - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5254 )

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 17 December 2012 16:06, Tom White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> There are some tests like the S3 tests that end with "Test" (e.g.
>>> Jets3tNativeS3FileSystemContractTest) - unlike normal tests which
>>> start with "Test". Only those that start with "Test" are run
>>> automatically (see the surefire configuration in
>>> hadoop-project/pom.xml). You have to run the others manually with "mvn
>>> test -Dtest=...".
>>>
>>> The mechanism that Colin describes is probably better though, since
>>> the environment-specific tests can be run as a part of a full test run
>>> by Jenkins if configured appropriately.
>>>
>>
>> I'd like that -though one problem with the current system is that you need
>> to get the s3 (and soon: openstack) credentials into
>> src/test/resources/core-site.xml, which isn't the right approach. If we
>> could get them into properties files things would be easier.
>> That's overkill for adding a few more openstack tests -but I would like to
>> make it easier to turn those and the rackspace ones without sticking my
>> secrets into an XML file under SCM
>
> I think the way to go is to have one XML file include another.
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="configuration.xsl"?>
> <configuration xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude">
>   <property>
>      <name>boring.config.1</name>
>      <value>boring-value</value>
>      ... etc, etc...
>   <xi:include href="../secret-stuff.xml" />
> </configuration>
>
> That way, you can keep the boring configuration under version control,
> and still have your password sitting in a small separate
> non-version-controlled XML file.
>
> We use this trick a bunch with the HA configuration stuff-- 99% of the
> configuration is the same between the Active and Standby Namenodes,
> but you can't give them the same dfs.ha.namenode.id or dfs.name.dir.
> Includes help a lot here.
>
>> another tactic could be to have specific test projects: test-s3,
>> test-openstack, test-... which contain nothing but test cases. You'd set
>> jenkins up those test projects too -the reason for having the separate
>> names is to make it blatantly clear which tests you've not run
>
> I dunno.  Every time a project puts unit or system tests into a
> separate project, the developers never run them.  I've seen it happen
> enough times that I think I can call it an anti-pattern by now.  I
> like having tests alongside the code-- to the maximum extent that is
> possible.

Just to be clear, I'm not referring to any Hadoop-related project
here, just certain other open source (and not) ones I've worked on.
System/unit tests belong with the rest of the code, otherwise they get
stale real fast.

It sometimes makes sense for integration tests to live in a separate
repo, since by their nature they're usually talking to stuff that
lives in multiple repos.

best,
Colin

>
> cheers,
> Colin
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > thanks, I'l; have a look. I've always wanted to add the notion of skipped
>>> > to test runs -all the way through to the XML and generated reports, but
>>> > you'd have to do a new junit runner for this and tweak the reporting
>>> code.
>>> > Which, if it involved going near maven source, is not something I am
>>> > prepared to do
>>> >
>>> > On 14 December 2012 18:57, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> One approach we've taken in the past is making the junit test skip
>>> >> itself when some precondition is not true.  Then, we often create a
>>> >> property which people can use to cause the skipped tests to become a
>>> >> hard error.
>>> >>
>>> >> For example, all the tests that rely on libhadoop start with these
>>> lines:
>>> >>
>>> >> > @Test
>>> >> > public void myTest() {
>>> >> >    Assume.assumeTrue(NativeCodeLoader.isNativeCodeLoaded());

On 18 December 2012 09:11, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Colin McCabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> another tactic could be to have specific test projects: test-s3,
> >> test-openstack, test-... which contain nothing but test cases. You'd set
> >> jenkins up those test projects too -the reason for having the separate
> >> names is to make it blatantly clear which tests you've not run
> >
> > I dunno.  Every time a project puts unit or system tests into a
> > separate project, the developers never run them.  I've seen it happen
> > enough times that I think I can call it an anti-pattern by now.  I
> > like having tests alongside the code-- to the maximum extent that is
> > possible.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not referring to any Hadoop-related project
> here, just certain other open source (and not) ones I've worked on.
> System/unit tests belong with the rest of the code, otherwise they get
> stale real fast.
>
> It sometimes makes sense for integration tests to live in a separate
> repo, since by their nature they're usually talking to stuff that
> lives in multiple repos.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
> Oh, I understood that. Even with jenkins set up to build a chain of
projects, there's a risk (in my experience at a former employer ) that the
people upstream wouldn't correlate mail from jenkins "project D test
failing" with their action to commit something.

Even so, there's always conflict between short-run unit tests and full
tests on a cluster of size >1. a short test cycle boosts desktop dev, but
you still want to be thorough.

On 17 December 2012 16:06, Tom White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There are some tests like the S3 tests that end with "Test" (e.g.
> Jets3tNativeS3FileSystemContractTest) - unlike normal tests which
> start with "Test". Only those that start with "Test" are run
> automatically (see the surefire configuration in
> hadoop-project/pom.xml). You have to run the others manually with "mvn
> test -Dtest=...".
>
>
thinking some more (especially, how to make subclasses of
FileSystemContractTestBase optional without patching that base class), we
could add public static suite() methods to the child classes and have them
skip all the tests if they are optional.

I haven't abused the suite() method for a while; it used to be the only way
to do parameterized tests, but in theory this should work -though there's
the maintenance overhead of keeping the list of test methods to return up
to date