Better ways to add to an Arquillian deployment?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Better ways to add to an Arquillian deployment?

John D. Ament
Hey guys (maybe Mark specifically?)

A number of people have been copying the pattern you helped create, where we use an archive appender in Arquillian to add test classes.  This works, however it causes an issue.

I opened a bug against Arquillian, because deployments that expect exceptions to be thrown are not testable.  Deployments that are not testable do not execute archive appenders.  I have a proposed fix, but the API is ugly.  

So I'm wondering, are there any other ideas to get tests running when deployment exceptions are expected?  Otherwise I think I'll end up having to import the tests and modify them to mirror the results.  It will mean needing to duplicate this group of tests: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-tck-tests/pom.xml#L80-L96

John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Better ways to add to an Arquillian deployment?

Romain Manni-Bucau
What about wrapping the contextual container and enrich it in deploy?

Le 8 oct. 2017 18:54, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hey guys (maybe Mark specifically?)

A number of people have been copying the pattern you helped create, where we use an archive appender in Arquillian to add test classes.  This works, however it causes an issue.

I opened a bug against Arquillian, because deployments that expect exceptions to be thrown are not testable.  Deployments that are not testable do not execute archive appenders.  I have a proposed fix, but the API is ugly.  

So I'm wondering, are there any other ideas to get tests running when deployment exceptions are expected?  Otherwise I think I'll end up having to import the tests and modify them to mirror the results.  It will mean needing to duplicate this group of tests: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-tck-tests/pom.xml#L80-L96

John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Better ways to add to an Arquillian deployment?

Romain Manni-Bucau
Ps: or use a container which supports enrichment instead or archive enrichment?

Le 8 oct. 2017 19:22, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
What about wrapping the contextual container and enrich it in deploy?

Le 8 oct. 2017 18:54, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hey guys (maybe Mark specifically?)

A number of people have been copying the pattern you helped create, where we use an archive appender in Arquillian to add test classes.  This works, however it causes an issue.

I opened a bug against Arquillian, because deployments that expect exceptions to be thrown are not testable.  Deployments that are not testable do not execute archive appenders.  I have a proposed fix, but the API is ugly.  

So I'm wondering, are there any other ideas to get tests running when deployment exceptions are expected?  Otherwise I think I'll end up having to import the tests and modify them to mirror the results.  It will mean needing to duplicate this group of tests: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-tck-tests/pom.xml#L80-L96

John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Better ways to add to an Arquillian deployment?

John D. Ament
If you're thinking of auxiliary archives, those also only get processes for testable deployments.  Otherwise I have no idea what you're referring to I'm afraid.

John

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:27 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ps: or use a container which supports enrichment instead or archive enrichment?

Le 8 oct. 2017 19:22, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
What about wrapping the contextual container and enrich it in deploy?

Le 8 oct. 2017 18:54, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hey guys (maybe Mark specifically?)

A number of people have been copying the pattern you helped create, where we use an archive appender in Arquillian to add test classes.  This works, however it causes an issue.

I opened a bug against Arquillian, because deployments that expect exceptions to be thrown are not testable.  Deployments that are not testable do not execute archive appenders.  I have a proposed fix, but the API is ugly.  

So I'm wondering, are there any other ideas to get tests running when deployment exceptions are expected?  Otherwise I think I'll end up having to import the tests and modify them to mirror the results.  It will mean needing to duplicate this group of tests: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-tck-tests/pom.xml#L80-L96

John
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Better ways to add to an Arquillian deployment?

Romain Manni-Bucau
In tomee or meecrowave for instance - tomcat too likely - you can add a container lib folder wich enriches the app without app appenders.


Le 8 oct. 2017 22:37, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
If you're thinking of auxiliary archives, those also only get processes for testable deployments.  Otherwise I have no idea what you're referring to I'm afraid.

John

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:27 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ps: or use a container which supports enrichment instead or archive enrichment?

Le 8 oct. 2017 19:22, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
What about wrapping the contextual container and enrich it in deploy?

Le 8 oct. 2017 18:54, "John D. Ament" <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hey guys (maybe Mark specifically?)

A number of people have been copying the pattern you helped create, where we use an archive appender in Arquillian to add test classes.  This works, however it causes an issue.

I opened a bug against Arquillian, because deployments that expect exceptions to be thrown are not testable.  Deployments that are not testable do not execute archive appenders.  I have a proposed fix, but the API is ugly.  

So I'm wondering, are there any other ideas to get tests running when deployment exceptions are expected?  Otherwise I think I'll end up having to import the tests and modify them to mirror the results.  It will mean needing to duplicate this group of tests: https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-tck-tests/pom.xml#L80-L96

John