On 12/2/2012 9:58 PM, John Sanda wrote:
On Friday I went to execute MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest, which is
now in the server/itests-2 module. I was unpleasantly surprised by the
execution time. Running this,
$ mvn -o clean test -Dtest=MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest
was taking upwards of 50 seconds. I am running on a fast machine as
well so I imagine the situation only gets more bleak on slower
hardware. There is nothing crazy going on in
MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest to cause such a long build time. I need
to write more tests, but I consider this is a blocker. The problem has
to do with Arquillian, or more specifically, how we are using it. In a
local branch I did some prototyping using
AuthorizationManagerBeanTest, for reasons I will explain later, and
was able to get the execution time down to about 10 seconds. There are
a few things I did to bring down the execution time.
1) Do not redeploy AS 7 every test run.
Even when not doing a clean, I was still seeing 40+ second build
times. Simply commenting out the antrun plugin in pom.xml sped things
up a little bit. We could put that plugin in a profile so we are not
always executing the Ant script(s) to deploy our AS 7 server. I do
something similar with Cassandra tests.
Did you mean deploy or unzip? Anyway, I
just checked something in to
avoid the unzip if the AS7 is already present in the target directory.
So, on subsequent runs you won't need to wait for the unzip to plod
through all of the files checking to see if it needs to add anything.
As for deploying, we do only start the AS7 one time for the test run.
And we only deploy the test archive one time as well. So, you pay the
same overhead for a single test file as you do for many. In the case of
running many, locally or like in a CI run, the overhead is actually
pretty small. For the single iteration it is slow, but then again this
is an integration test and it requires a running server.
2) Use remote container instead of managed container
Arquillian handles starting and stopping a managed container whereas
the lifecycle of a remote container is not handled by Arquillian. I
kept my AS 7 instance running. Maybe Jay and/or Mazz have some
insights into whether or not there might be issues with using a remote
container.
Certainly using a running remote server can speed things up since it
avoids that setup/teardown, although I suspect it can affect a lot of
the tests as written today, given that many freely perform transaction
management and interact with the entitymanager.
I have nothing against doing this when it make sense. Perhaps you could
give us some instructions if you have this working for certain tests.
From the perspective of jenkins CI runs the managed container certainly
makes sense.
3) Introduce more modularity
I studied the timestamps in the log statements of tests runs to get a
better feel for where the most time is being spent. While there is not
one huge culprit, the lack of modularity is a big problem, and it will
only get worse. We have lots of EJBs, and they are split across only 2
EJB JAR files. One contains entity beans, and the other contains all
of our SLSBs and MDBs. The latter corresponds to the very large
server/jar module. When you go to run an Arquillian test, we deploy
all of those EJBs along with some other components. Given the sheer
number of them, it is going to take some time for the deployment to run.
In order to speed up deployments and execution times, we need to limit
what we deploy to test code, the production code under test, and
required runtime dependencies. This however is not possible with the
source code organized and packaged as it is. In my branch I chose
AuthorizationManagerBean because of its minimal dependencies. It
minimized the amount of refactoring I had to do to get things running.
I created a new module named server-authorization that produces an EJB
JAR artifact. My test produces/deploys a JavaArchive much like the
example at
http://arquillian.org/guides/getting_started_rinse_and_repeat/.
I have nothing against this, either, as people see fit to take on this
work perhaps they can make our overall environment better.
Modularizing our EJBs makes the build more complex, but it brings a
lot of benefits. Prior to the AS7 merge to master, SLSBs along with
tests lived in server/jar. I rarely would execute all of the tests in
server/jar because of how long they take to run. Even running a single
test class took a non-trivial amount time due to the embedded
container start up/initialization time. Now consider the process with
our Arquillian set up. Suppose I make a change to
MeasurementDataManagerBean that I want to test. Here are the steps,
1. Make code changes to MeasurementDataManagerBean and
to MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest
2. mvn install server/jar
3. mvn install server/ear
4. mvn test -Dtest=MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest (from tests-2 module)
Certainly this is tedious during iterative SLSB changes. Perhaps we
could create an ear option that does not package the wars and sar, just
the test artifacts, as this takes some time and then gets stripped away
anyway.
As for the modularity, I'm a little dubious only in that we have so many
interactions at the SLSB layer. The number of different dependencies is
staggering. At least having the full ejb jars and the ear libs covers
all of the bases.
In addition to the already very long running time for the test, I have
to rebuild both server/jar and the EAR. With what I have done, both
MeasurementDataManagerBean and MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest might
live in a module named server-metrics. The steps to test some changes
would be as follows,
1. Make code changes to MeasurementDataManagerBean and
to MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest
2. mvn test -Dtest=MeasurementDataManagerBeanTest
There is no need to rebuild any other modules and the test presumably
will execute a lot faster as we only deploy the required artifacts
instead of the whole EAR. There are more benefits to increases
modularity, but I will postpone those to a later email since this has
one has already gotten rather length.
- John
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel