kriswest
commented
1 year ago I still think all proprietary code should be in a branch, rather than the trunk of the repository. Glad the main app code is being pulled from outside, but there's still a load of custom there.
Finsemble doesn't need the specific config files. It'll run from the main ones - in fact this file is entirely redundant with the one in the directories folder. The other file, is in the appD 1.2 format, where you have no choice but to have a file per provider. Hence, the latter file is only useful if you're going to host a 1.2 standard appD for testing.
Technically, 1.2 compliance requires connection to an appD - although the FINOS appD isn't usable with additional apps (such as the 2.0 conformance apps as it will change test behaviour/results. It's also an arse as you'll need a copy of it per vendor as it only supports a single manifest per record. Hence, I don't think it's worth doing - but I also don't think we should be going with entirely proprietary approaches to set up - at least not in the trunk of the repo. Hence, I would like to see this stay on the branch - while finsemble specific config for 1.2 can move to its own (if we care about preserving the 1.2 format file - we're agnostic as we only support that now for backwards compatibility).
Connection to an appD in 2.0 is optional but strongly recommended. There I think we should provide a single file, with multiple host manifests for vendors in each record in trunk - and better if there is a live appD serving it (and only it). We should not promote or distribute alternatives to using that format in the trunk of the project - but will need them somewhere. Finally, vendors could be encouraged to drop a readme file in their branch and maintain with any details needed to run the test...
robmoffat
@robmoffat this is a bunch of proprietary JS files going into the main branch of the conformance framework again. Was this not supposed to be kept on either a branch or an external URL?