The codebase of the microserver is easier to debug and less volatile than ATS, you'd want the codebase on that side to be reliable. We should also worry about subtly changing behaviour of the ATS origin which would break the tests not so subtly I guess. Making the origin a moving target might not be a good idea...
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:35, Walt Karas <wka...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: > It seems unlikely that an error in one trafficserver instance would correct > an error in the other. > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 9:21 AM Jason Kenny <jke...@verizonmedia.com> > wrote: > > > No, > > > > The issue here is that if trafficserver is broken we test with broken > > trafficserver that could result in everything passing. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:02 AM Walt Karas > > <wka...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> For testing, should we replace the Microserver with a dedicated instance > >> of > >> traffic_server that we populate with PUSH requests? It would be one > less > >> thing to maintain. > >> > > >
