Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0
Eric Newton 2013-11-18, 00:22
-1

I'm a little more invested in Mock since I wrote the first instance of it.
 I know it does not simulate the accumulo API perfectly.  And I know it
adds some maintenance overhead for anyone adding new features to the API.

However, adding additional testing requirements for a new API is something
I like.

Take a counter example: the "file://" hdfs implementation.  It allows you
to use the local file system through the same API you would use for the
distributed file system.

Except, it doesn't. It does not behave the same as hdfs.  None of our
recovery tests can use the local fs implementation because it just doesn't
implement the proper flush semantics.

Yet dozens of our own tests rely on the speedy availability of the local fs
implementation.

Having a fast way to test iterators that uses a test harness is not the
same thing as testing the iterators using the same API they would use
without Mock.  I have long called for an iterator test harness to stress
the issues of iterator lifetimes.

Finally, I would humbly suggest that our software has stabilized to the
point where we tests at all levels:

* iterator stress tester
* Mock API
* Integration test using MAC
* System tests that can be run at full scale

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 for keeping a fast and easy (and well documented) mechanism for
> debugging iterators. Perhaps the SortedMapiterator is the solution..but the
> key words here are 'well documented'
>
> -1 for continuing support a half implemented mock framework that we have to
> maintain. It makes code maintenance very hard when you couldnt, for
> instance in the 1.3 series, even create a MockBatchDeleter. As Chris
> stated, I agree that using the mock in the past had users walking the line
> too closely between unit and integration tests. With the mock, I could
> write a bunch of fully valid tests against an iterator without the ability
> to verify that compactions didn't negatively affect my results. Except for
> being fast, the MAC mostly eliminates the need to use the mock for that
> kind of test at all while it makes the tests more valid to an actual
> runtime environment.
>
> +1 for mocking framework to be used in relevant unit tests. There are times
> when a quick and dirty mock is immensely useful and MAC is slow and way
> overkill for those tasks. Perhaps it would be worth a ticket to investigate
> replacing the current usages of mockAccumulo (I haven't looked in awhile)
> with said mocking framework.
>
> On Nov 15, 2013 3:29 PM, "Michael Berman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (not really a voter)
> >
> > I think iterator unit tests should use SortedMapIterator, not anything
> like
> > a full accumulo stack, and I think MAC is far more suitable for
> integration
> > tests because it actually runs the same code...it's impossible for an
> > outsider to tell in which behaviors mock reflects actual accumulo and in
> > which it does something totally different.
> >
> > I do think MAC needs some help, but I think the process of excising mock
> > from our own tests will flesh out what we need there better than anything
> > else we could do.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Keith Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:42 PM
> > > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > *Subject:* [VOTE] Deprecate mock in 1.6.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Should we deprecate mock accumulo for 1.6.0?  This was considered [1]
> for
> > > 1.5.0.  I started thinking about this because I never added conditional
> > > writer to mock.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-878
> > >
>