Yeah, I completely understand, plus in-memory is faster. I never got ambitious enough to make it more configurable so I could pick which location for which test. Ideally, when a test is stable, it should run in-memory, but I still liked the forensics of on-disk.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:40 PM Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason I went with having the db entirely in memory was to run > tests in parallel. Once you have a disk presence, you'll have to > worry about test collisions. > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Michael Gentry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > > > To add to what Mike said, I've used H2 in the past with pretty good > > results. You can either let Cayenne create your schema or use something > > like Flyway/Liquibase if you have that integrated into your application > > already. > > > > One thing I do differently, though, is I create a temporary on-disk DB > > instead of in-memory DB. I've found that when a test fails, I can use > the > > H2Console utility to examine the leftover on-disk DB to see what it looks > > like. On successful tests, though, I close the DB connection and delete > > it, ready to start over with a clean slate after that. > > > > mrg > > > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:59 PM Ken Anderson <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> All, > >> > >> We’re thinking about setting up an in-memory database in place of SQL > >> Server for doing unit tests. Does anyone have any experience doing this > >> with Cayenne? Any recommendations or warnings? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Ken > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and accompanying documents contain > >> confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. > >> This e-mailed information is private and protected by law. If you are > not > >> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > >> copying, or distribution, or the taking of any action based on the > contents > >> of this information, is strictly prohibited. > >> >
