[BEAM-160] Import NexMark integration tests.

[mshields822]

BUILDS ON #85

This is an initial import of the 'NexMark' integration tests.
All Google Dataflow specific code has been isolated.
It could do with more cleanup, but wanted to get it out in the sunlight.

[davorbonaci]

R: @davorbonaci

[davorbonaci]

Build fix, please?

Caused by: hudson.plugins.git.GitException: Command "git merge 30585ad3529b0799043d3cef9d2824337b631baa" returned status code 1:
stdout: Auto-merging sdks/java/core/pom.xml
Auto-merging pom.xml
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in pom.xml
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[davorbonaci]

I'm not sure between integration/java and sdks/java/integration. I think I prefer the second one a bit more. Even more, we might want to do sdks/java/integration/nexmark.

[mshields822]

I don't think we should take the build seriously until the pubsub pull
request is in since this builds on top. I've put it here so I can point to
it this fri and get the early stuff done.

Not really fussed about the directory name, whatever seems best is fine.
But it will depend on at least one runner so putting under sdks/... seems
misleading. Thought about examples/... but the code quality there is
significantly higher :-)

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Davor Bonaci [email protected]
wrote:

I'm not sure between integration/java and sdks/java/integration. I think
I prefer the second one a bit more. Even more, we might want to do
sdks/java/integration/nexmark.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#99 (comment)

[kennknowles]

+1 to Mark's last point. When modules are all split, we are going to want this dependency direction:

integration tests → runner(s) → SDK

Otherwise we have a cycle between runners and SDK. Is there another option?

[kennknowles]

Pinging because this has been sitting for a while. Maybe rebase to kick the tests against the new code layout?

[mshields822]

I'm still chipping away on this in the background. I've left it as a
dormant PR since I've been pointing customers to it (esp for Q10). Will
ping back when actually ready, and we need the 3 pubsub ones to go in first.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Kenn Knowles [email protected]
wrote:

Pinging because this has been sitting for a while. Maybe rebase to kick
the tests against the new code layout?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#99 (comment)