Perform testing using module-path #143
Conversation
* Upgrade testing * Test as classpath-only, module-classpath and module-whitebox * Use Maven workarounds to achieve module-whitebox * Tested on Maven 3.8.8 and 3.9.9
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across multiple files, primarily focusing on the build configuration, testing capabilities, and module management for a Java project. Key updates include modifications to the Maven build process, the addition of a module descriptor for testing, enhancements to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant CI/CD
participant Maven
participant TestModulepath
User->>CI/CD: Push code changes
CI/CD->>Maven: Trigger build process
Maven->>Maven: Execute build with updated parameters
Maven->>TestModulepath: Run tests
TestModulepath->>TestModulepath: Retrieve classpath and modulepath
TestModulepath->>User: Output classpath and modulepath
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
src/test-whitebox/module-info.java (1)
17-19: Consider enhancing the module documentation.The current comment is brief. It would be beneficial to provide more details about the module's purpose, contents, and its role in the testing framework. This can help other developers understand the module's significance more quickly.
Consider expanding the documentation to something like:
/** * Joda-Money test module. * This module contains test configurations and dependencies for the Joda-Money library. * It is designed to facilitate white-box testing and includes necessary exports and dependencies * for comprehensive unit and integration testing. */src/test/java/org/joda/money/TestModulepath.java (2)
24-27: Consider enhancing the class Javadoc.While the current Javadoc briefly explains the purpose, it could be more descriptive. Consider adding more details about how this test class verifies the classpath/modulepath settings and why this is important for the project.
37-55: LGTM: Well-implemented helper method with a minor suggestion.The
describePathmethod is well-implemented and effectively simplifies the path output. It handles both Unix and Windows-style paths, which is good for cross-platform compatibility.Minor suggestion: Consider using a constant for the separator in the
joining()method call. This would make it easier to change the separator if needed in the future.Example:
private static final String PATH_SEPARATOR = " "; // ... return list.isEmpty() ? path : list.stream().collect(joining(PATH_SEPARATOR));pom.xml (6)
126-133: Comprehensive testing configuration, consider documenting the workaroundThe testing configuration is well-structured, covering multiple scenarios (classpath-only, module-classpath, and module-whitebox). This approach ensures thorough testing across different module configurations.
However, the mentioned Maven workaround for the module-whitebox scenario might benefit from additional documentation. Consider adding a comment or linking to external documentation explaining the workaround in detail, its potential implications, and why it's necessary.
136-173: Well-structured Surefire configuration, consider adding brief commentsThe Maven Surefire plugin configuration is well-structured and aligns perfectly with the testing scenarios outlined earlier. The use of different phases for various test executions is a good practice.
To enhance readability and maintainability, consider adding brief inline comments for each execution, explaining its purpose and any specific considerations (e.g., the use of patch-module in the test-module-whitebox execution).
174-206: Clever IDE compatibility solution, consider additional safeguardsThe use of the copy-rename-maven-plugin to dynamically manage module-info.java for IDE compatibility is a clever solution. It allows for seamless integration between IDE classpath tests and Maven whitebox tests.
However, this approach introduces some complexity:
- Consider adding a fail-safe mechanism to ensure module-info.java is always restored, even if the post-integration-test phase fails.
- Add detailed documentation in the POM or a separate README file explaining this setup, its purpose, and potential pitfalls.
- Consider using a profile to enable/disable this behaviour, allowing for easier debugging if issues arise.
207-221: Necessary additional compile step, improve comment clarityThe additional testCompile execution in the pre-integration-test phase is a crucial step in the build process, ensuring that test code is recompiled after the dynamic addition of module-info.java.
To improve clarity, consider updating the comment to explicitly state the purpose of this step:
<!-- Recompile test code after dynamically adding module-info.java for whitebox testing -->This will help other developers quickly understand the reason for this additional compilation step.
667-686: Effective IntelliJ IDEA compatibility profile, consider version documentationThe IntelliJ IDEA profile effectively addresses the IDE's limitation in handling 'requires static' in module-info.java. The conditional activation and specific Surefire plugin configuration are well-implemented.
To further improve maintainability:
- Consider adding a comment specifying which versions of IntelliJ IDEA this workaround is necessary for.
- If possible, include a link to any relevant IntelliJ issue tracker items or documentation.
This additional context will help future maintainers understand when this profile can be removed or if it needs updating.
833-837: Plugin version updates approved, consider changelog entriesThe updates to maven-deploy-plugin, maven-dependency-plugin, and maven-gpg-plugin versions are appropriate and align with good maintenance practices. Keeping these plugins up-to-date helps ensure security and access to the latest features.
To further improve project maintenance:
- Consider adding brief changelog entries for these updates, noting any significant changes or reasons for the updates.
- If not already in place, consider implementing a regular schedule or automated process for checking and updating plugin versions.
These practices will help maintain a clear history of project evolution and ensure timely updates in the future.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- .github/workflows/build.yml (1 hunks)
- .gitignore (1 hunks)
- pom.xml (4 hunks)
- src/test-whitebox/module-info.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/org/joda/money/TestModulepath.java (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
.gitignore (2)
12-12: Excellent addition to ignore test output.Adding
/test-output/to the.gitignorefile is a good practice. It prevents temporary test result files from being tracked by Git, keeping the repository clean and focused on source code.
13-13: Query: Is ignoringmodule-info.javaintentional?I noticed that
/src/test/java/module-info.javahas been added to the.gitignorefile. This is unusual as themodule-info.javafile is crucial for defining the module structure in Java 9+. Ignoring this file might cause issues for other developers or CI systems.Could you please clarify the reasoning behind this decision? If it's related to the Maven workarounds for module-whitebox testing mentioned in the PR objectives, it might be beneficial to add a comment explaining why this file is being ignored.
To ensure this doesn't cause unintended consequences, could you verify if this file exists and if it's necessary for the project's test setup?
src/test-whitebox/module-info.java (2)
1-15: Copyright and license information looks good.The copyright notice is up-to-date, and the Apache License 2.0 is correctly referenced. This adheres to best practices for open-source software licensing.
20-33: Module configuration looks appropriate, but verify necessity of exports.The module configuration is well-structured for a test module. The open declaration, required dependency, exports, and transitive testing dependencies are all logically set up.
However, as this is a white-box testing module, it's worth verifying:
- Are both package exports (org.joda.money and org.joda.money.format) necessary for the tests?
- Are all the transitive testing framework dependencies required?
Ensuring only the necessary elements are exported and required can help maintain a clean and efficient module structure.
To verify the necessity of the exports and dependencies, you could run the following script:
This script will help identify if all exported packages and transitive dependencies are actually used in the test files.
.github/workflows/build.yml (1)
38-38: Excellent addition of the-ntpoption to Maven configuration.The inclusion of the
-ntp(no transfer progress) option in the Maven configuration is a positive change. This option suppresses the output of file transfer progress information when downloading or uploading artifacts. As a result, it will make the build logs cleaner and potentially slightly faster by reducing I/O operations. This change is particularly beneficial in CI/CD environments where verbose logs can be overwhelming.src/test/java/org/joda/money/TestModulepath.java (1)
1-22: LGTM: File header and package declaration are correct.The license header, package declaration, and imports are all appropriate and correctly formatted.
pom.xml (1)
839-853: Plugin updates approved, verify new plugin compatibilityThe continued updates to Maven plugin versions are commendable, ensuring the build process benefits from the latest improvements and security patches.
The addition of the copy-rename-maven-plugin (version 1.0) aligns with the earlier configuration for dynamic module-info.java management. However, as this appears to be a new addition to the project:
- Verify that version 1.0 of copy-rename-maven-plugin is the most recent stable version available.
- Consider adding a comment in the POM file noting why this specific plugin was chosen over potential alternatives.
- Ensure that this plugin is compatible with the project's minimum required Maven version.
These steps will help document the decision-making process and ensure long-term compatibility.
| @Test | ||
| void dumpPaths() { | ||
| var classpath = System.getProperty("java.class.path", ""); | ||
| var modulepath = System.getProperty("jdk.module.path", ""); | ||
| System.out.println("Classpath: " + describePath(classpath)); | ||
| System.out.println("Modulepath: " + describePath(modulepath)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve test method implementation and naming.
- Consider renaming the method to follow the typical test method naming convention, e.g.,
testClasspathAndModulepathConfiguration(). - Instead of using
System.out.println(), consider using assertions to verify the expected classpath and modulepath configurations. This will make the test more robust and self-verifying. - You might want to add specific assertions to check for the presence of expected elements in the classpath and modulepath.
Example:
@Test
void testClasspathAndModulepathConfiguration() {
String classpath = System.getProperty("java.class.path", "");
String modulepath = System.getProperty("jdk.module.path", "");
assertThat(describePath(classpath)).contains("target/classes", "target/test-classes");
assertThat(describePath(modulepath)).contains("joda-convert", "junit-jupiter");
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
The same test code is run three times and three different outcomes are expected. As such, it isn't possible to write this with asserts as per normal testing standards.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jodastephen Understood, thank you for the explanation. Since the test code is run three times with different expected outcomes, using standard assertions isn't feasible here.
(；ω；)
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
TestModulepathto verify classpath and modulepath settings.module-info.javafor improved compatibility with the Java module system.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores
.gitignoreto exclude test output directory.pom.xmlfor better testing capabilities.