Naming conventions for Arquillian profiles

[ppitonak]

Hi,

there are differences in naming conventions in "fundamental tests" and Metamer tests.

Fundamental tests contain following two profiles:

• container-jbossas-managed-7 (7.1.1.Final)
• container-jbossas-remote-7 (7.1.1.Final)
• container-tomee-remote (1.0.0.Final)

Metamer (and other tests) contain these profiles:

• jbossas-managed-7-0 (7.0.2.Final)
• jbossas-remote-7-0 (7.0.2.Final)
• jbossas-managed-7-1 (7.1.1.Final)
• glassfish-managed-3-1 (3.1.2.2.Final)
• tomee-remote-1-5 (1.5.0.Final)
• tomcat-managed-6 (6.0.35)
• tomcat-managed-7 (7.0.32)
• ...

Arquillian uses these profiles in getting started guide:

• arquillian-jbossas-managed
• arquillian-jbossas-remote

This is what Forge generates:

• JBOSS_AS_MANAGED_7.X

I identified this requirements:

• profiles for managed and remote JBoss AS, Tomcat, Glassfish and TomEE in Metamer
• profiles for managed and remote JBoss AS and TomEE in fundamental tests
• profiles for multiple versions of one container (e.g. JBoss AS 7.0.2 and 7.1.1)

Metamer naming conventions do good job for us, the only disadvantage is the need of changing all Jenkins jobs when new minor version of AS is available, e.g. jbossas-managed-7-2 will be created when first public release of JBoss AS 7.2.0 is available. What do you think about it?

[lfryc]

Hey Pavol,

I found Metamer versioning very intuitive and best fitting our requirements.

I would suggest proceed that way with Fundamental tests as well.

[bleathem]

+1 for the Metamer naming convention