echauchot commented on PR #23: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-shared-utils/pull/23#issuecomment-1812670080
> > do you agree with my proposed modifications to the doc in the conf so that I can do the related flink-architecture-tests PR ? > > Looks reasonable to me 👍 > Ok thanks, test-project template for new connectors is updated here and I update flink-architecture-tests flink-connector-base in [this PR](https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23723) but I did not update all the externalized and non-externalized connectors. > > do you agree to keep this simulated violation for testing purpose ? > > I'm not too convinced it's worth the trouble. Right now it adds a lot of complexity, and afaict it may not work correctly. > > It's fundamentally a tricky thing to test. What you kind of want is a test that always fails, so that you can check that the architecture exclusion is working correctly. exactly > But you don't want the build to fail if the exclusion isn't present, because that's also part of the expected test matrix. if the exclusion is not present, the build should fail. I don't see a good way to test that that wouldn't introduce yet another parameter (including implicit ones like the Flink version), which then may invalidate the whole test if it's not working properly. I don't want to introduce yet another parameter. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
