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

feat(testing): New testing feature to enable running both a acceptor and initiator in the same process. #684

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kcross-ctoken
Copy link

@kcross-ctoken kcross-ctoken commented Dec 16, 2024

This PR adds the ablity to have a registry per instance of initiator or acceptor and not have session conflicts.
The main purpose of this is to allow in process testing of both initiator and Acceptor.

There is an example test service_test which does the whole setup and routing between initiator and acceptor in the same process.

This would also allow the "integration" or service tests to run against eachother without the need for a deployed service or a docker image. Using this technique will require less resources for running tests and they will run a lot faster.

@kcross-ctoken kcross-ctoken changed the title feat(registry): Adde feature to enable runing both a acceptor and initiator in the same process. feat(registry): New testing feature to enable running both a acceptor and initiator in the same process. Dec 16, 2024
@kcross-ctoken kcross-ctoken changed the title feat(registry): New testing feature to enable running both a acceptor and initiator in the same process. feat(testing): New testing feature to enable running both a acceptor and initiator in the same process. Dec 16, 2024
@kcross-ctoken
Copy link
Author

@ackleymi ... thoughts ?

@kcross-ctoken
Copy link
Author

@michaelwilner ??

@kcross-ctoken
Copy link
Author

@ekovacs ?

@ackleymi
Copy link
Member

This has backwards compatibility, correct? Quite a lot of changes in here, but it certainly has a lot of benefits

@kcross-ctoken
Copy link
Author

kcross-ctoken commented Jan 24, 2025

Quite a lot of changes in here, but it certainly has a lot of benefits

yup it does ... the functions in file provide the backwards compatibility also the existing "integration" tests should give some confidence in this too.

@kcross-ctoken
Copy link
Author

@ackleymi ... can we get this merged sometime soon so I don't need to keep rebasing my fork ?

@kcross-ctoken
Copy link
Author

kcross-ctoken commented Feb 5, 2025

@ackleymi, @michaelwilner .... is there a reason not to merge this ?

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