Re: Spring Boot for Apache Geode 1.0.0.M1 Released!

Congrats, this is awesome! I'll take a look later today and provide feedback. Nick On Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 9:42 PM John Blum wrote: > Apache Geode Community- > > It is my please to announce the first milestone release of Spring Boot for > Apache Geode, version 1.0.0.M1. > > See the official Sprin

Re: Spring Boot for Apache Geode 1.0.0.M1 Released!

Great stuff John! -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer - Gemfire Product Manager Mobile: 631-835-4771 On Jun 26, 2018 12:42 AM, "John Blum" wrote: > Apache Geode Community- > > It is my please to announce the first milestone release of Spring Boot for > Apache Geode, version 1.0.0.M1. > > See the o

Re: Spring Boot for Apache Geode 1.0.0.M1 Released!

Great John, Congratulations! Nilkanth Patel. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Michael Stolz wrote: > Great stuff John! > > -- > Mike Stolz > Principal Engineer - Gemfire Product Manager > Mobile: 631-835-4771 > > On Jun 26, 2018 12:42 AM, "John Blum" wrote: > > > Apache Geode Community- > > >

DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

I'd like to suggest that we refactor our current test source set, which contains both unit, integration and distributed tests, into distinct source sets, test, integrationTest, distributedTest. These source sets would replace the use of the primary categories UnitTest, IntegrationTest and Distribut

[Spring CI] Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #960 was SUCCESSFUL (with 2423 tests)

--- Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #960 was successful. --- Scheduled 2425 tests in total. https://build.spring.io/browse/SGF-NAG-960/ -- This

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

This seems like a good idea to me.  I've never liked having the different types of tests all jumbled together.  OTOH I like to be able to run all MembershipTests using the category mechanism.  I would like to keep that ability, so I don't think we should do a wholesale removal of @Category.  Yo

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

Bruce, what use case do you see for the category annotation going forward? Could we bring it back after we identified that we do in fact need it? On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > This seems like a good idea to me. I've never liked having the different > types of tests

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

+1 for the suggested structure. -Dan On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > I'd like to suggest that we refactor our current test source set, which > contains both unit, integration and distributed tests, into distinct source > sets, test, integrationTest, distributedTest. Thes

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

Sounds good, though I’m not entirely sure we need ‘commonTest/‘. I guess we’ll find out :-) Anthony > On Jun 26, 2018, at 4:19 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > +1 for the suggested structure. > > -Dan > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > >> I'd like to suggest that we refa

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

I like the idea of good structure around our test-complexity @Category layout. @Alexander, not to speak for Bruce, but to my mind things like SecurityTest / WanTest / etc are orthogonal to the UnitTest / IntegrationTest / DistributedTest / AcceptanceTest classification. I like adding better runti

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

+1 for restructuring. -Anil. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > I like the idea of good structure around our test-complexity @Category > layout. > > @Alexander, not to speak for Bruce, but to my mind things like SecurityTest > / WanTest / etc are orthogonal to the UnitTe

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

@Patrick Those all sound like great use cases to me +1 to new structure. So far this seems like a change with no downsides. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Anilkumar Gingade wrote: > +1 for restructuring. > > -Anil. > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Rhomberg > wrote: > > > I like t

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

+1 although I'm not sure I like "commonTest" On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > I'd like to suggest that we refactor our current test source set, which > contains both unit, integration and distributed tests, into distinct source > sets, test, integrationTest, distributedTes

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 4:34 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > > @Anthony, I'm pretty confident we'll need a commonTest. Off the top of my > head, it'll need to host the startup rules, GfshRule, and the > SimpleSecurityManager. None of these examples would make sense in unit tests so probably not

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 5:34 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > +1 although I'm not sure I like "commonTest" The choice of name or the concept of some common classes? I’m not sold on either myself but tossed it in there to quell issues that may arise from some shared classes between the Test types.

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 4:13 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > This seems like a good idea to me. I've never liked having the different > types of tests all jumbled together. OTOH I like to be able to run all > MembershipTests using the category mechanism. I would like to keep that > ability

Build failed in Jenkins: Geode-nightly #1237

See Changes: [bschuchardt] GEODE-1655: CI Failure in -- [...truncated 26.66 KB...] > Task :geode-assembly:assemble > Task :extensions/session-testing-war:jar > Task :geode-pu