Added HTTP compression + tests

[Narigo]

Please review and merge if okay.

[normanmaurer]

Why remove the annotations ?

[Narigo]

Somehow it doesn't work in Scala to have the @Test methods in a superclass. The gradle test runner then always yields something like Cannot find method XXX and fails the tests. The tests now are in the subclasses and use the super implementation.

[normanmaurer]

Strange... I would have expected it would "just work"

[Narigo]

You can try it yourself, maybe it's just my environment and we can figure out how to make this even more simpler. But I guess there's some issue with Scala + JUnit and this should work for everyone now. :)

[normanmaurer]

I think it's ok was just wondering

Am 05.11.2013 um 07:58 schrieb Joern Bernhardt notifications@github.com:

In src/test/scala/org/vertx/scala/tests/core/http/HttpTestForSimpleApi.scala:

@@ -19,14 +19,12 @@ class HttpTestForSimpleApi extends TestVerticle {

.toString()

• @test
  You can try it yourself, maybe it's just my environment and we can figure out how to make this even more simpler. But I guess there's some issue with Scala + JUnit and this should work for everyone now. :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[galderz]

@Narigo @normanmaurer WDYT of galderz@243592c ? Runs the test function with both clients, compressed and uncompressed.

[Narigo]

@galderz just skimmed over it - will we be able to see which one of the two failed? Do we get some kind of message "Now testing with/without compression" ? If not, can we at least make a logger.info() or something like that?

From the point of reusability I'd say let's use your version, definitely better to just have a single class for the tests.

[normanmaurer]

Agree here

Am 14.11.2013 um 17:50 schrieb Joern Bernhardt notifications@github.com:

In src/test/scala/org/vertx/scala/tests/core/http/HttpTestForSimpleApi.scala:

@@ -19,14 +19,12 @@ class HttpTestForSimpleApi extends TestVerticle {

.toString()

• @test
  @galderz just skimmed over it - will we be able to see which one of the two failed? Do we get some kind of message "Now testing with/without compression" ? If not, can we at least make a logger.info() or something like that?

From the point of reusability I'd say let's use your version, definitely better to just have a single class for the tests.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[galderz]

@Narigo No, at the moment I don't think you'd be able to see which one failed, but I can improve on that for sure. I'll update asap.

[galderz]

@Narigo Done. I've submitted a new PR (#95) with your changes and my test adjustments. I've added information to the assert messages on whether the client has compression enabled or not.

[galderz]

Closing this. I've added a new PR (#95) with @Narigo's code and my test adjustments.