On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> So my preferred approach is, unit test when possible without writing a lot
> of scaffolding and mock superstructure. Mocking is your code telling you to
> write a system test.
This.
+1 unit tests
On 21 May 2014 02:36, "Jake Luciani" wrote:
> I think having cql unit tests is certainly a good idea. It doesn't replace
> dtests but makes it easier to have better coverage locally.
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Tyler Hobbs wrote:
>
> > Sylvain and I have been having a d
I think having cql unit tests is certainly a good idea. It doesn't replace
dtests but makes it easier to have better coverage locally.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Tyler Hobbs wrote:
> Sylvain and I have been having a discussion about testing CQL in unit tests
> vs dtests. I'd like to hea
So i’ve been tinkering a bit with CMS config because we are still seeing fairly
frequent full compacting GC due to framgentation/promotion failure
As mentioned below, we are usually too fragmented to promote new in-flight
memtables.
This is likely caused by sudden write spikes (which we do hav
Given a unit and a system test that cover the same code, the unit test is
10x more useful when something breaks. It's difficult to run dtests locally
at all, let alone attach your debugger to the right instance at the right
time to troubleshoot deeper.
So my preferred approach is, unit test when p
Sylvain and I have been having a discussion about testing CQL in unit tests
vs dtests. I'd like to hear if there are any other opinions on the topic.
We currently only test CQL queries through dtests. I'd like to start
adding unit tests that exercise CQL where it makes sense. To me, dtests
make
