Need merging changes for parallel tests execution #691

Closed
dmitrysenkovich opened this Issue Jan 31, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@dmitrysenkovich

Hello everyone,
I'm using Spock to write E2E tests. It is almost ready except a thing: it runs too slowly, I would like to parallelize it. I have found this pull request. It is already merged into groovy-2.3 but not in master. Could you please suggest a rough time I can see the changes released? It would be awesome if you could offer any workaround till a jar with the pull request merged is not release.
Thank you in advance, guys!

@nvonop

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nvonop

nvonop Jan 31, 2017

Finally seeing this would be awesome! Geb integration is great however E2E tests are really slow and using JUnit categories to parallelise the test runs is quite clunky.

nvonop commented Jan 31, 2017

Finally seeing this would be awesome! Geb integration is great however E2E tests are really slow and using JUnit categories to parallelise the test runs is quite clunky.

@dmitrysenkovich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dmitrysenkovich

dmitrysenkovich Jan 31, 2017

I meant my tests are running slowly just because of my verification in loop. I'm checking certain records should appear in our database. So it is not Spock's problem. The only thing I can make my tests run more quick is to run them concurrently. For now I implemented my custom ConcurrentSpecRunner, ConcurrentSpecification and etc. but it is not a way it should have been implemented. And I see the implementation exist and it is even merged in some branch but I can't find it in any release.

dmitrysenkovich commented Jan 31, 2017

I meant my tests are running slowly just because of my verification in loop. I'm checking certain records should appear in our database. So it is not Spock's problem. The only thing I can make my tests run more quick is to run them concurrently. For now I implemented my custom ConcurrentSpecRunner, ConcurrentSpecification and etc. but it is not a way it should have been implemented. And I see the implementation exist and it is even merged in some branch but I can't find it in any release.

@Fuud

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Fuud

Fuud Jan 31, 2017

Contributor

The main problem with this PR is that it will work incorrectly with surefire if there are only parametrized tests in class.
Corresponding issue in surefire was fixed and PR is posted.
apache/maven-surefire#114

Contributor

Fuud commented Jan 31, 2017

The main problem with this PR is that it will work incorrectly with surefire if there are only parametrized tests in class.
Corresponding issue in surefire was fixed and PR is posted.
apache/maven-surefire#114

@dmitrysenkovich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dmitrysenkovich

dmitrysenkovich Jan 31, 2017

Thanks a lot for such a quick answer, @Fuud. Now the issue with the changes became clear to me. Could approximate time the changes can get to release? I need to merge my changes to into my project at work so is it good idea to leave my custom logic at it is for now? Or is there any other way out?

Thanks a lot for such a quick answer, @Fuud. Now the issue with the changes became clear to me. Could approximate time the changes can get to release? I need to merge my changes to into my project at work so is it good idea to leave my custom logic at it is for now? Or is there any other way out?

@leonard84

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@leonard84

leonard84 Mar 7, 2017

Member

@dmitrysenkovich this PR only adds parallel execution within a spec, class based parallel execution should work without this.

Member

leonard84 commented Mar 7, 2017

@dmitrysenkovich this PR only adds parallel execution within a spec, class based parallel execution should work without this.

@dmitrysenkovich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dmitrysenkovich

dmitrysenkovich Mar 7, 2017

@leonard84 I see it but this was the one I needed. I didn't want to spread tests across many classes

@leonard84 I see it but this was the one I needed. I didn't want to spread tests across many classes

@leonard84 leonard84 added the won't fix label Jul 7, 2018

@leonard84 leonard84 closed this Jul 7, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment