Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[UNDERTOW-2371] initialize the DefaultServer once to speed up test HttpContinueSslServletTestCase #1574

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

TestBoost
Copy link
Contributor

There are five tests in the test class HttpContinueSslServletTestCase. However, they reply on the same DefaultServer to send post http request. The time cost of start or stop for the DefaultServer is high. They are not modifying the contents of the DefaultServer, thus we can just initialize the DefaultServer once before or after all test methods inside test class HttpContinueSslServletTestCase.

The test runtime can jump from 5.43160 s to 1.8027 s after applying these changes when run on our machine.

@baranowb
Copy link
Contributor

baranowb commented Apr 3, 2024

@TestBoost Could you please create a ticket?

@baranowb baranowb added enhancement Enhances existing behaviour or code under verification Currently being verified (running tests, reviewing) before posting a review to contributor waiting CI check Ready to be merged but waiting for CI check labels Apr 3, 2024
@TestBoost TestBoost changed the title initialize the DefaultServer once to speed up test HttpContinueSslServletTestCase [UNDERTOW-2371] initialize the DefaultServer once to speed up test HttpContinueSslServletTestCase Apr 3, 2024
@TestBoost
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure, I just submit a ticket here https://issues.redhat.com/browse/UNDERTOW-2371. I don't know why the test class Http2ClientTestCase fails because the DefaultServer is already closed. Maybe we also need some checks in the test Http2ClientTestCase too.

@baranowb baranowb added the waiting PR update Awaiting PR update(s) from contributor before merging label May 6, 2024
@baranowb baranowb added the failed CI Introduced new regession(s) during CI check label Jun 24, 2024
@baranowb
Copy link
Contributor

@TestBoost could you please force push again to trigger CI?

@ropalka ropalka requested a review from baranowb August 7, 2024 10:15
Copy link
Contributor

@baranowb baranowb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If marked method is not used, it should be removed?

}

@Before
public void before() throws Exception {
public static void before() throws Exception {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this method even used now?

…tpContinueSslServletTestCase

Signed-off-by: Flavia Rainone <[email protected]>
@baranowb baranowb removed the failed CI Introduced new regession(s) during CI check label Nov 26, 2024
@baranowb baranowb merged commit 4577d88 into undertow-io:main Nov 26, 2024
16 checks passed
@baranowb baranowb added next release This PR will be merged before next release or has already been merged (for payload double check) and removed waiting PR update Awaiting PR update(s) from contributor before merging under verification Currently being verified (running tests, reviewing) before posting a review to contributor waiting CI check Ready to be merged but waiting for CI check labels Nov 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Enhances existing behaviour or code next release This PR will be merged before next release or has already been merged (for payload double check)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants