[VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

Otto Fowler
If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
the testcases in the
provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.

I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
check?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

Bernd Eckenfels
Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they are already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).

What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.

Gruss
Bernd

Von: Otto Fowler
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
the testcases in the
provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.

I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
check?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

Otto Fowler
protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
    addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
    addTests(UriTests.class);
    addTests(NamingTests.class);
   // --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
   // --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
    addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
    addTests(UrlTests.class);
   // -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
}


These are the tests that I have run.  They are the standard set minus the
classloader.
All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these tests
explicitly check for File or Folder,
that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.

I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS.  I haven’t posted it to my github
yet, but I will if you want to look.  So, with zookeeper you have nodes and
paths etc.
each node may have children and may have data.  So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
correct designation.


RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER, the
others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY.  So
I don’t
think they count.
An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.


On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels ([hidden email])
wrote:

Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they are
already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).

What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.

Gruss
Bernd

Von: Otto Fowler
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
the testcases in the
provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.

I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
check?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

Otto Fowler
FileType normalisePath

In UriParser is an issue as well, trying to derive a FOLDER or FILE by the
name doesn’t work if the system is FILE_OR_FOLDER….


On March 6, 2018 at 15:17:50, Otto Fowler ([hidden email]) wrote:

protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
    addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
    addTests(UriTests.class);
    addTests(NamingTests.class);
   // --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
   // --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
    addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
    addTests(UrlTests.class);
   // -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
}


These are the tests that I have run.  They are the standard set minus the
classloader.
All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these tests
explicitly check for File or Folder,
that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.

I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS.  I haven’t posted it to my github
yet, but I will if you want to look.  So, with zookeeper you have nodes and
paths etc.
each node may have children and may have data.  So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
correct designation.


RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER, the
others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY.  So
I don’t
think they count.
An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.


On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels ([hidden email])
wrote:

Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they are
already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).

What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.

Gruss
Bernd

Von: Otto Fowler
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
the testcases in the
provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.

I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
check?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

Otto Fowler
FILE_OR_FOLDER just doesn’t seem to be supported in the system completely.
Does anyone remember when it came about and why?


On March 7, 2018 at 17:41:56, Otto Fowler ([hidden email]) wrote:

FileType normalisePath

In UriParser is an issue as well, trying to derive a FOLDER or FILE by the
name doesn’t work if the system is FILE_OR_FOLDER….


On March 6, 2018 at 15:17:50, Otto Fowler ([hidden email]) wrote:

protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
    addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
    addTests(UriTests.class);
    addTests(NamingTests.class);
   // --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
   // --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
    addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
    addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
    addTests(UrlTests.class);
   // -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
}


These are the tests that I have run.  They are the standard set minus the
classloader.
All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these tests
explicitly check for File or Folder,
that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.

I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS.  I haven’t posted it to my github
yet, but I will if you want to look.  So, with zookeeper you have nodes and
paths etc.
each node may have children and may have data.  So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
correct designation.


RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER, the
others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY.  So
I don’t
think they count.
An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.


On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels ([hidden email])
wrote:

Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they are
already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).

What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.

Gruss
Bernd

Von: Otto Fowler
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
An: Commons Developers List
Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
the testcases in the
provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.

I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
check?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

garydgregory
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Otto Fowler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FILE_OR_FOLDER just doesn’t seem to be supported in the system completely.
> Does anyone remember when it came about and why?
>

Good question. I hope someone will pipe in.

Gary


>
>
> On March 7, 2018 at 17:41:56, Otto Fowler ([hidden email]) wrote:
>
> FileType normalisePath
>
> In UriParser is an issue as well, trying to derive a FOLDER or FILE by the
> name doesn’t work if the system is FILE_OR_FOLDER….
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 at 15:17:50, Otto Fowler ([hidden email]) wrote:
>
> protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
>     addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
>     addTests(UriTests.class);
>     addTests(NamingTests.class);
>    // --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
>    // --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
>     addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
>     addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
>     addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
>     addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
>     addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
>     addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
>     addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
>     addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
>     addTests(UrlTests.class);
>    // -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
> }
>
>
> These are the tests that I have run.  They are the standard set minus the
> classloader.
> All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these tests
> explicitly check for File or Folder,
> that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.
>
> I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS.  I haven’t posted it to my github
> yet, but I will if you want to look.  So, with zookeeper you have nodes and
> paths etc.
> each node may have children and may have data.  So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
> correct designation.
>
>
> RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER, the
> others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY.  So
> I don’t
> think they count.
> An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels ([hidden email])
> wrote:
>
> Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they are
> already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).
>
> What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
> testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> Von: Otto Fowler
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
> An: Commons Developers List
> Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests
>
> If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type (
> or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some of
> the testcases in the
> provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER explicitly.
>
> I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
> refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where we
> check?
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

Otto Fowler
Anybody from VFS-past around?


On March 8, 2018 at 23:55:54, Gary Gregory ([hidden email]) wrote:

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Otto Fowler <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> FILE_OR_FOLDER just doesn’t seem to be supported in the system
completely.
> Does anyone remember when it came about and why?
>

Good question. I hope someone will pipe in.

Gary


>
>
> On March 7, 2018 at 17:41:56, Otto Fowler ([hidden email])
wrote:
>
> FileType normalisePath
>
> In UriParser is an issue as well, trying to derive a FOLDER or FILE by
the
> name doesn’t work if the system is FILE_OR_FOLDER….
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 at 15:17:50, Otto Fowler ([hidden email])
wrote:

>
> protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
> addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
> addTests(UriTests.class);
> addTests(NamingTests.class);
> // --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
> // --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
> addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
> addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
> addTests(UrlTests.class);
> // -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
> }
>
>
> These are the tests that I have run. They are the standard set minus the
> classloader.
> All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these
tests
> explicitly check for File or Folder,
> that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.
>
> I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS. I haven’t posted it to my github
> yet, but I will if you want to look. So, with zookeeper you have nodes
and
> paths etc.
> each node may have children and may have data. So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
> correct designation.
>
>
> RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER,
the
> others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY.
So
> I don’t
> think they count.
> An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels ([hidden email])
> wrote:
>
> Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they
are

> already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).
>
> What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
> testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> Von: Otto Fowler
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
> An: Commons Developers List
> Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests
>
> If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER type
(
> or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some
of
> the testcases in the
> provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER
explicitly.
>
> I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
> refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where
we
> check?
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests

garydgregory
You need someone from cold storage! ;-)

Gary

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Otto Fowler <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Anybody from VFS-past around?
>
>
> On March 8, 2018 at 23:55:54, Gary Gregory ([hidden email]) wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Otto Fowler <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > FILE_OR_FOLDER just doesn’t seem to be supported in the system
> completely.
> > Does anyone remember when it came about and why?
> >
>
> Good question. I hope someone will pipe in.
>
> Gary
>
>
> >
> >
> > On March 7, 2018 at 17:41:56, Otto Fowler ([hidden email])
> wrote:
> >
> > FileType normalisePath
> >
> > In UriParser is an issue as well, trying to derive a FOLDER or FILE by
> the
> > name doesn’t work if the system is FILE_OR_FOLDER….
> >
> >
> > On March 6, 2018 at 15:17:50, Otto Fowler ([hidden email])
> wrote:
> >
> > protected void addBaseTests() throws Exception {
> > addTests(ProviderCacheStrategyTests.class);
> > addTests(UriTests.class);
> > addTests(NamingTests.class);
> > // --> file or folder rework addTests(ContentTests.class);
> > // --> file or folder rework addTests(ProviderReadTests.class);
> > addTests(ProviderWriteTests.class);
> > addTests(ProviderWriteAppendTests.class);
> > addTests(ProviderRandomReadTests.class);
> > addTests(ProviderRandomReadWriteTests.class);
> > addTests(ProviderRandomSetLengthTests.class);
> > addTests(ProviderRenameTests.class);
> > addTests(ProviderDeleteTests.class);
> > addTests(LastModifiedTests.class);
> > addTests(UrlTests.class);
> > // -> file or folder rework addTests(UrlStructureTests.class);
> > }
> >
> >
> > These are the tests that I have run. They are the standard set minus the
> > classloader.
> > All the tests pass, other than the commented out tests, because these
> tests
> > explicitly check for File or Folder,
> > that you cannot write or read data from a folder etc.
> >
> > I’m playing around with a Zookeeper FS. I haven’t posted it to my github
> > yet, but I will if you want to look. So, with zookeeper you have nodes
> and
> > paths etc.
> > each node may have children and may have data. So FILE_OR_FOLDER is the
> > correct designation.
> >
> >
> > RE : Resource and URL -> Only the MIME provider returns FILE_OR_FOLDER,
> the
> > others either delegate to the canonical type, or are FILE or IMAGINARY.
> So
> > I don’t
> > think they count.
> > An the MIME provider has NO tests…. so yeah.
> >
> >
> > On March 6, 2018 at 14:25:46, Bernd Eckenfels ([hidden email])
> > wrote:
> >
> > Those tests should be behind a capability for sure, but I thought they
> are
> > already (as the resource and URL fikesystem already passes the tests).
> >
> > What filesystem do you have in mind and what are examples of failing
> > testcases? I think I had fixed a few for WebDav back in the days.
> >
> > Gruss
> > Bernd
> >
> > Von: Otto Fowler
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 13:41
> > An: Commons Developers List
> > Betreff: [VFS] FILE_OR_FOLDER breaking tests
> >
> > If you have a filesystem, where everything could be a FILE_OR_FOLDER
> type (
> > or VIRTUAL until attached ), then it seems like you need to replace some
> of
> > the testcases in the
> > provider suites, since they assume or check for FILE and FOLDER
> explicitly.
> >
> > I guess my question is, are the tests as they are wrong and need to be
> > refactored or do we actually need alternate tests for content etc where
> we
> > check?
> >
>
>