David Medinets 2013-03-21, 20:59
dlmarion@... 2013-03-21, 21:11
Dave Marion 2013-03-21, 22:40
David Medinets 2013-03-22, 01:26
dlmarion@... 2013-03-22, 01:44
Josh Elser 2013-03-21, 22:43
Dave Marion 2013-03-21, 23:11
dlmarion@... 2013-03-22, 01:50
David Medinets 2013-03-22, 01:58
dlmarion@... 2013-03-22, 02:03
David Medinets 2013-03-22, 02:08
dlmarion@... 2013-03-22, 02:16
Keith Turner 2013-03-22, 14:11
Jim Klucar 2013-03-22, 14:42
How does it hurt the project if I spend time on this? Accumulo already
compiles on Windows. It's the tests that are failing. How does
skipping failing tests help? I suggest that unit tests should not
spawn exec processes in any case because that is a source of slowness.
Mocking the unix-specific stuff on Windows will lead to faster tests.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Jim Klucar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 to Dave's comment. I don't think we should be spending effort supporting
> compiling on an unsupported runtime environment. If something fails because
> it is too *nix-y then just skip that test with a local pom.xml override or
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > So we are getting into an area where you want to compile the software on
>> a platform that is not supported. If you want to compile on an unsupported
>> platform, then I would suggest just ignoring the tests that won't work on
>> that system.
>> My thought on this is that if changes to make it work on windows
>> improve the test and/or build process, then thats good. On the other
>> hand I would be opposed to making test and/or build more complex
>> inorder to support windows. I would define increasing complexity as
>> making it more difficult to run, maintain, or improve the test and/or
>> build process.
>> > I don't think that this needs to be changed now as Hadoop only supports
>> *nix based systems and we are close to a 1.5.0 release. If you want to
>> tackle this in 1.6 (trunk) thats a different story.
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "David Medinets" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:08:48 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Using powermock-api-mockito in tests?
>> > I hate ignoring things. It makes me uneasy. I'm looking at the other
>> > tests as well. For example, the AccumuloDFSBase class depends on
>> > running /bin/sh to find a umask. No reason that dependency can't be
>> > mocked out during testing... If nothing else, this research will form
>> > my own set of Accumulo Zen Koans.
>> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:03 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Take a look at my other email on this subject, it might be better to
>> just add the profile that I mentioned and add this to the list of ignored
>> tests for now. I know that there is a ticket for removing ACCUMULO_HOME in
>> all places.
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "David Medinets" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:58:18 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Using powermock-api-mockito in tests?
>> >> Dave, you were very close. Here is the mocking code that I used.
>> >> Map<String, String> mockSystemProperties = new HashMap<String,
>> >> mockSystemProperties.put("ACCUMULO_HOME", System.getenv("HOME"));
>> >> PowerMock.mockStaticPartial(System.class, "getenv");
>> >> PowerMock.replayAll();
>> >> I'd like write a JIRA ticket and commit this code. I'll wait until
>> >> tomorrow for feedback though. No rush for this kind of change.
>> >> The message that started this investigation was:
>> >> Could not find file with URI "/lib/ext/[^.].*.jar" because it is a
>> >> relative path, and no base URI was provided.
>> >> It occured on line 135 of AccumuloVFSClassLoader.java because
>> >> ACCUMULO_HOME was blank and therefore no base URI was provided.
Dave Marion 2013-03-22, 22:48
David Medinets 2013-03-22, 23:54