Closed huntc closed 7 years ago
This, to me, sounds like integration tests. Isn't this something we instead ought to build into a pipeline from dev to ops via integration?
I agree that we should provide a nice hook for integration testing also. That's distinct from the use case here though. This is to support a developers dynamic workflow. Unfortunately developers tend not to be test driven always .
I think it would be preferable if the verification was not manual. If we know what enpoints are exposed it should be possible to have autoverification.
Closing - wont' fix.
If we can move to a situation where sbt-conductr may kick off a built-in, single node version of ConductR then it'd be great to be able to provide a task that allows the developer to verify their services. Here's a draft requirement for this:
I'm imagining an sbt sub-task as an extension of our existing
conduct
task such as per the following usage:The
verify
command would use the sbt-core-next project to manage a Docker based instance of ConductR (single-node flavour only) configured with HAProxy and possibly even our bundling of Elastic Search, rsyslog etc. On the latter point you may then even use theevents
andlogs
commands that we're going to implement to diagnose startup issues etc.