Skip to content

Updated geowave-test to support testing for GEOSERVER 2.6.2.#191

Merged
jwomeara merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
GEOWAVE-190
Jan 27, 2015
Merged

Updated geowave-test to support testing for GEOSERVER 2.6.2.#191
jwomeara merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
GEOWAVE-190

Conversation

@jwomeara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The travis tests are currently all passing, but initially they failed for the combination of Geoserver 2.6.2 and Accumulo 1.5.1. We should keep an eye on this, I suppose...

@jwomeara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Let's not merge this in for now. The reason the build is failing is because the WPS jars that we drop into WEB-INF lib contain Geoserver 2.7 classes and packages. Specifically, the error that's being called out in our integration test refers to the class WpsAccessRuleDAO in the package org.geoserver.wps.security. org.geoserver.wps.security does not exist on the Geoserver github page for the 2.6.2 tag, and it also is not included in the wps-core jar that you can download from their official website.

@chrisbennight
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Issue with the artifacts in the boundless repo - looks like a build quirk, the 2.6.2 jar/war contains both the 2.6.2 AND 2.7-beta artifacts, as does the 2.7-beta jar - here's a listing of the extracted lib directory, filtered for versions (from the 2.6.2 jar in this case)

2 6 2-artifact

build error probably just a race condition depending on which versions for each jar load first, and if the 2.7-beta version wins if it has any breaking changes/ABI incompatabilities.

Comment thread geowave-test/pom.xml Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably remove this exclusion when the artifacts get fixed - shouldn't need it

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The same goes for the snapshot jars. Those are excluded to fix 2.5.2. We
need to get in contact with boundless to have them fix their jars.
On Jan 22, 2015 10:44 PM, "Chris Bennight" notifications@github.com wrote:

In geowave-test/pom.xml
#191 (comment):

@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
war
true
${project.build.directory}/geoserver

  •                               <excludes>**/commons-dbcp-1.4.jar,**/_1.7-SNAPSHOT.jar,__/_2.7-SNAPSHOT.jar,**/_20140915_.jar,**/*13-SNAPSHOT.jar</excludes>
    
  •                               <excludes>**/*1.7-beta.jar,**/_13-beta.jar,__/_2.7-beta.jar,**/commons-dbcp-1.4.jar,**/_1.7-SNAPSHOT.jar,__/_2.7-SNAPSHOT.jar,**/_20140915_.jar,**/*13-SNAPSHOT.jar</excludes>
    

Probably remove this exclusion when the artifacts get fixed - shouldn't
need it


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ngageoint/geowave/pull/191/files#r23430427.

@jwomeara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Actually I added exclusions for those jars in the geowave-test pom to fix
that problem. If you look at the unpacked geoserver folder in the target
directory youll see that they are properly missing. The problem now is due
to the wps jars that we add to the web-inf/lib directory. Boundless
included some classes and packages from their upcoming 2.7 release in their
wps jars (but only the ones checked into their repo; the ones on theain
site are fine).

Do you know of anyone at boundless who we can talk to to get this fixed?
It is affecting 2.5.2 as well.
On Jan 22, 2015 10:41 PM, "Chris Bennight" notifications@github.com wrote:

Issue with the artifacts in the boundless repo - looks like a build quirk,
the 2.6.2 jar/war contains 2.7-beta artifacts, and vice versa - here's a
listing of the extracted lib directory, filtered for versions (from the
2.6.2 jar in this case)

[image: 2 6 2-artifact]
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1864782/5869465/d0ebbfd2-a287-11e4-92ef-4f55fb4dc855.png


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#191 (comment).

@chrisbennight
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Makes complete sense why you added them - that's what I meant by "remove when the artifact gets fixed" - i.e. when we get a 2.6.2 war/jar published to the boundless repo that doesn't have 2.7 classes :) - just wanted to make sure when it was fixed (it being fixed artifacts published to the maven repo) we didn't leave that code in there

@chrisbennight
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jwomeara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Agreed.
On Jan 22, 2015 10:49 PM, "Chris Bennight" notifications@github.com wrote:

Makes complete sense why you added them - that's what I meant by "remove
when the artifact gets fixed" - i.e. when we get a 2.6.2 war/jar published
to the boundless repo that doesn't have 2.7 classes :) - just wanted to
make sure when it was fixed (it being fixed artifacts published to the
maven repo) we didn't leave that code in there


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#191 (comment).

@chrisbennight
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I'll add the 2.5.2 bit in there also; didn't check that one

@jwomeara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

2.6.1 is the only one that seems to work without adding exclusions. I
didn't spot any differences when comparing those jars with the ones from
the main site
On Jan 22, 2015 10:51 PM, "Chris Bennight" notifications@github.com wrote:

All add the 2.5.2 bit in there also; didn't check that one


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#191 (comment).

# The first commit's message is:

Updated geowave-test to support testing for GEOSERVER 2.6.2.

# This is the 2nd commit message:

update .travis.yml;

disable caching to force refresh on artifacts
jwomeara added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2015
Updated geowave-test to support testing for GEOSERVER 2.6.2.

Superb commit!  Bravo!
@jwomeara jwomeara merged commit 995870d into master Jan 27, 2015
@jwomeara jwomeara deleted the GEOWAVE-190 branch January 27, 2015 17:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants