Thanks Aditya for giving the background.
It looks to me what did not go right is both developer and SQE do not
have tests to cover "asadmin deploy without the port option specified"
case before and during the build promotion, one reason is in order to
automate this test, it requires appserver install with default admin port,
so when user does not use the port option, appserver can use the default
admin port to connect to server. But as Adity mentioned below
not everyone was expected to run the tests with the defaults.
Jagadesh has suggested to add "asadmin deploy without the port option
specified" test into smoke test, since smoke test is run by nightly
build, and I checked with Terena the nightly build does install
appserver with default admin port. So this is one option we have. If
any one
has a good suggestion, please let us know.
Thanks,
Judy
Aditya Dada wrote:
> I can give some background of where the gap came in...
>
> When we were writing the framework for Quick Look, we specified the
> options on purpose, since not everyone was expected to run the tests
> with the defaults.
>
> In fact, even now, when the test will be added, some fancy if-else in
> ANT (which doesn't lend itself readily to scripting) would have to be
> put in place to make sure that if a non-default port is specified in
> config.properties, then --port option IS passed to the deploy command
> otherwise the test will fail for some developers out there using
> non-default ports.
>
> Also, since SQE tests, smoke tests and Quick Look test frameworks, all
> borrow heavily from each other, (and CTS tests don't cover CLI), the
> gap we see now, came into the picture.
>
> But this is also a good wakeup call....its time to revisit the
> framework, and find some of the common cases that aren't being covered.
>
> -Aditya
>
>
>
>
> vince kraemer changed the world a bit at a time, and said on
> 12/1/2006 5:06 PM:
>
>> That is really good news.
>>
>> But the question still stands... What did not go right? Is there a
>> gap/blind-spot/root-cause/something that prevented this test from
>> being in the test suite that is used to validate a build as
>> "promotable"?
>>
>> If there was "something"; will the addition of this test, "use
>> asadmin deploy without the port option specified" going to address
>> that "something" completely, or do we need to add some more test to
>> "close the gap"?
>>
>> I was very surprised to see this issue in the promoted build,
>> partially because I know the number of folks testing the application
>> server produced from the Project GlassFish code-base and the HUGE
>> number of automated test that the code gets subjected to (on a near
>> continuous basis)....
>>
>> vbk
>>
>> Judy Tang wrote:
>>
>>> I talked with SQE and developer and we plan to add a QL test to test
>>> asadmin deploy command
>>> without giving --port option.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> vince kraemer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Over on the dev alias there are reports of an issue that seems like
>>>> it would have prevented the build from being promoted...
>>>>
>>>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=2792
>>>>
>>>> The issue did not stop the build from being promoted.
>>>>
>>>> How can we improve the promotion process to prevent an issue like
>>>> this from being present in the promoted build in the future?
>>>>
>>>> Is it worth doing?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> vbk
>>>
>>>
>