ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <>
Subject Re: Remote JUnit (was Re: XSLT help?)
Date Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:19:18 GMT
Rob Oxspring wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> I'm sure I remember talk of remote junit tests on ant-dev a while back 
> (a year??), couldn't find references recently though... was it you that 
> was interested then?  Anyone else? - would have thought others were 
> interested at least! Anyway comments / questions inline:

There is some remote junit stub stuff in the sandbox, from stephane.

> Steve Loughran wrote:
>> FYI, I am trying to add remote JUnit stuff to the smartfrog framework 
>> I work on by day; 
> Hmmm, smartfrog... as in  How does that compare 
> to IBM's STAF

Smartfrog as in 302s you to

Looks like STAF is test centric. SmartFrog is really deployment of 
running code, liveness probes, etc. You provide a component for 
something like, jetty or axis and it deploys it, configures it, handles 
failures how you choose it. It's been used in 1-10,000+ node 
configurations., and I am busy trying to adapt it to the GGF Grid 
architecture these days. Testing is something I need to put in as a 
sideline to testing the framework itself, and because testing is so 
central to a develop/deploy process you cannot leave it out.

The key thing is probably the configuration language which is *not* XML; 
a deep religious issue that is slowly being resolved. The language 
itself is not hard to use, and we have ant tasks to deploy stuff to 
running daemons right now (though I need to add in the certificate based 

>  > the idea being you could deploy code on serverA, then
>> run tests on clients B,C and D. 
> I've recently been tasked with automating our test environment and am 
> planning something along these lines myself.  If you want someone to 
> help develop / test the solution then I'm quite possibly your man 
> (assuming smartfrog looks up to the job).

oh, this would be great. I am only just writing the stuff now, help 
would be excellent though things are mostly immature. Still, this is 
actually day job work so I am likely to actually do it.

> So whats your plan regarding syncrhonisation? would the build block 
> until all tests have completed and produce results or would the tests be 
> forked and results be collected later?  And what about testbox selection 
> - do you expect to simply run all tests on all boxes running a smartfrog 
> daemon?


The way the language works is that components have attributes (or nested 
components ==elements/element references); special attributes are 
interpreted by the runtime. So "sfProcessHost" specifies the hostname to 
run on; the daemons distribute things amongst themselves.

I'd imagine have a deployment descriptor that would declare a test 
listener component that could run on a different host from any of the 
test runners. Test runners would run on whatever; there would be nested 
components to descibe test packages, ideally with all the tricks of the 
junit task (if/unless, patterns, etc).

TestListener extends XMLTestListener  {
	sfProcessHost = "logServer";
	directory = " /nfs/common/tests";

	I havent settled on a good way to map this.
	We will only have access to .class files in the jars
	but being java1.4 only, I can use built in regexp support.
FunctionalTests extends TestSuite {
	pattern= "*Test";

FunctionalTestRunner extends JunitTestRunner {
	listener extends TestListener;
	ftests extends FunctionalTests;

sfConfig extends {

WinXPTests extends FunctionalTestRunner {
	sfProcessHost "";

DebianTests extends  FunctionalTestRunner {
	sfProcessHost "";
This would run one test listener, run the same set of tests on different 
boxes. I'm ignoring deploy of the app itself in this config, as that is 
a separate 'application' to deploy.

If you are into dynamic selection of host boxes and things then stuff 
gets more complex, but complex is tractable. As far as ant integration 
goes, I hadnt thought about build synchronisation. If you do a blocking 
deploy, <sf-run>, then the build blocks until it is finishd; here the 
tests. A non-blocking deploy with <sf-deploy> would just deploy and keep 

I need to think more about sync. I'd guess each testrunner needs to 
notify something that the test run is completed (the listener?) and 
terminate, and then I need to have a test listener know to terminate 
when all listened to test runs are finished. It might be easier to have 
one listener per test runner. And I may need a new ant task to resync, 
something that blocks until a named smartfrog app is terminated .

>  > I'm just getting to grips with
>> RMI-transport of Junit results, then comes the test runner itself, 
>> which will be slightly different from the Ant one. I'm going to 
>> generate files in the same format as the ant ones, so they would all 
>> integrate together. I fear I may have to add some better reporting 
>> once we do start running tests on multiple machines, as you would want 
>> a summary report for each machine (including machine config information)
> Amen to that - heppy to muck in though.

That'd be great. There is a new point release of smartfrog (with beta of 
the ant tasks) out in the next two weeks; there should be little change 
from what is in CVS now (I hope; there is a lot more prerelease churn 
than I'd like). Get on the smartfrog-developer email list at sourceforge 
if you want to work with the tool.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message