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

(Back)port of PAXEXAM-926 (RMI port range is not configurable for forked container) towards the v4.x branch #1126

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: v4.x
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

glimmerveen
Copy link

I've prepared a (back)port of an enhancement that was previously merged towards master (PAXEXAM-926). This enhancement is about being able to configure the RMI port (range) of a forked container.

This is particular useful features when running tests in parallel through surefire/failsafe's fork feature:

<configuration>
    <systemPropertyVariables>
        <pax.exam.forked.invoker.port.range.lowerbound>1${surefire.forkNumber}000</pax.exam.forked.invoker.port.range.lowerbound>
        <pax.exam.forked.invoker.port.range.upperbound>1${surefire.forkNumber}009</pax.exam.forked.invoker.port.range.upperbound>
    </systemPropertyVariables>
    <forkCount>2</forkCount>
</configuration>

Without this enhancement, the parallel execution of the tests in most cases fail due to multiple tests trying to claim the same RMI port at the same time.

The original commits used (by cherrie-picking):

  • a6270b9 by @nfalco79 which was the initial commit of this feature (PAXEXAM-926)
  • 2b4a85e by @rmannibucau which contained some improvements related to the unit tests of this feature.

nfalco79 and others added 2 commits December 24, 2024 17:42
… Cherry-pick of commit a6270b9 (enhancement tracked before as PAXEXAM-926, and merged through ops4j#79).
…back in 2019. The update was, at least according to the associated PR, primarily focused on Karaf embedded runner, but there were some (test) changes in the pax-exam-container-forked as well.

Cherry-pick of commit 2b4a85e (merged through ops4j#89).
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.

3 participants