You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If two distinct @QuarkusTestResources share the same dev service, one of them will fail (bad!). We shut down the dev service when we stop the application, but we start the dev service during augmentation, not during startup so there's an asymmetry. The second test will check during augmentation, see an existing dev service, and think it can share a dev service with the first one, but it can't, because it will be shut down at the end of the first test.
I don't think we have a test that exposes this, but one can be created trivially. For example, in integration-tests/oidc, duplicate WebsocketOidcTestCase and KeycloakXTestResourceLifecycleManager, prefix both names with Another, and adjust the linking:
@QuarkusTest
@QuarkusTestResource(AnotherKeycloakXTestResourceLifecycleManager.class)
public class AnotherWebsocketOidcTestCase {
Either the new test or one of the original tests will fail.
The proper solution for this is #45785 , but that's invasive, so this issue covers adding the test and identifying a tactical workaround.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If two distinct @QuarkusTestResources share the same dev service, one of them will fail (bad!). We shut down the dev service when we stop the application, but we start the dev service during augmentation, not during startup so there's an asymmetry. The second test will check during augmentation, see an existing dev service, and think it can share a dev service with the first one, but it can't, because it will be shut down at the end of the first test.
I don't think we have a test that exposes this, but one can be created trivially. For example, in
integration-tests/oidc
, duplicateWebsocketOidcTestCase
andKeycloakXTestResourceLifecycleManager
, prefix both names withAnother
, and adjust the linking:Either the new test or one of the original tests will fail.
The proper solution for this is #45785 , but that's invasive, so this issue covers adding the test and identifying a tactical workaround.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: