WIP: Initial warning about cross-process marshalling: Issue #996#995
Draft
craigfowler wants to merge 1 commit intonunit:masterfrom
Draft
WIP: Initial warning about cross-process marshalling: Issue #996#995craigfowler wants to merge 1 commit intonunit:masterfrom
craigfowler wants to merge 1 commit intonunit:masterfrom
Conversation
This catches me out every darn time! I feel like it should be more obvious and pointed out.
Author
|
I've opened #996 to describe the initial problem I'm trying to solve. There are probably other places where this could be signposted-from, such as the docs for those interfaces/methods which are executed "in test suite/case discovery/creation"-land. I could use some help from maintainers to point that out, as well as to fact-check that I'm even correct (based on a half-recalled explanation from long ago). |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This catches me out every darn time! I feel like it should be more obvious and pointed out. In this case I've added an object as a parameter which is attached to an event bus which is maintained outside of the test execution. This means that the event bus has an affinity with the "test discovery & creation" process wheras the things submitting events to it are in the "test execution" process. Of course, this results in two 'copies' of the event bus, and any listeners to it (which were attached from the "discovery & creation" process) don't actually receive any of the events sent by the test execution.
I'm not 100% sure this is factually correct yet; I could use some assistance from maintainers to be confident that it's right. At the moment this PR is more of a reminder to myself to look further into it and improve upon it.