fix: move proto test files under scripted#475
Conversation
octonato
force-pushed
the
rgc/feed-proto-test-files-to-scripted
branch
from
ae5b48c to
111237b
Compare
octonato
changed the title
octonato
force-pushed
the
rgc/feed-proto-test-files-to-scripted
branch
from
111237b to
1eae839
Compare
| | | ||
| | override final def additionalDescriptors: immutable.Seq[Descriptors.FileDescriptor] = | ||
| | ${service.fqn.parent.name}Proto.javaDescriptor :: | ||
| | ${typeName(service.descriptorObject)}.javaDescriptor :: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change looks good, but the test trips over it. Likely because the test still uses a 'Java-style' model, I'll PR making that easier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(PR'ed #481, though not sure anymore it's the same problem)
raboof
left a comment
raboof
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I liked having a 'realistic' example in the scripted tests, but I guess we can re-introduce that when we want ;)
patriknw
left a comment
patriknw
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, an additional scripted setup we could use is to setup something only for CI and have a job copying proto files from the samples and verify that they compile. Compared to the samples themselves it would validate that the generated unmanaged code compiles.
octonato
force-pushed
the
rgc/feed-proto-test-files-to-scripted
branch
from
1eae839 to
165d7c0
Compare
Are you referring to the shopping-cart that I removed? We can add it back. My thought was that we have enough realistic examples being tested in the samples and that the scripted/compilation tests should be about generating and compiling exhaustively.
We will need to make sure that the samples protos don't conflict with each other. That they don't define the same types in the same packages. This is at least true for the counter sample. Same model for value entity and event sourced entity. The customer registry is probably the same. I don't think it's worth the effort to make then not conflict.
But this is already happening, no? We do run the tests for the samples. They compile and run. |
We could setup CI job that run copy and run them one by one.
Not fully testing with an empty project so that we verify that the generated unmanaged sources are correct. The unmanaged sources are in git and implemented by us. An easier approach to my idea would be to not use scripted, but just have a CI job that removes |
|
Created issue #486 for that additional CI idea. |
3 participants
On top of #470.
This brings the proto test file under the scripted tests. I needed to move the files there and then let the java compilation test point to the scripted proto dir.
The reason for that is that the whole project needs to be copied to /tmp when running and we need the files to be copied as well. That said, the scripted tests is now the host for those files.