Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 5, 2022. It is now read-only.

Unit tests for Core_IWorkerVia #47

Open
brunnels opened this issue May 5, 2014 · 6 comments
Open

Unit tests for Core_IWorkerVia #47

brunnels opened this issue May 5, 2014 · 6 comments

Comments

@brunnels
Copy link
Contributor

brunnels commented May 5, 2014

I would like to start work on adding a Core_Worker_Via_Memcache class. It would make it much simpler to implement this new class if there were some unit tests to run to ensure the results from each method call are behaving as intended.

@shaneharter
Copy link
Owner

I agree. That's been the plan but as you can tell, I have limited time to
work in this. Where I currently work we don't use the library, I left the
job I was at when I wrote it. So this is all in my own time alongside other
side projects/etc.

After I added the Workers functionality, the otherwise simple daemon
library got a lot more complicated. So I planned 3 releases:

  1. Refactor and clean-up the original Mediator logic, which used to have
    hard dependencies on shm and mq. Extract the IPC and add an interface. That
    shipped last year.
  2. Add unit test coverage including refactoring to use DI where necessary
    to assist testing.
  3. Add more Via objects and other functionality.

Had I started writing this library today I certainly would've included test
coverage from day 1. I wasn't there yet in 2010 when I started it.

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Benjamin Runnels
[email protected]:

I would like to start work on adding a Core_Worker_Via_Memcache class. It
would make it much simpler to implement this new class if there were some
unit tests to run to ensure the results from each method call are behaving
as intended.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/47
.

@brunnels
Copy link
Contributor Author

brunnels commented May 5, 2014

From first glance looks like I can re-use a lot of the code from Core_Lock_Memcached

@brunnels
Copy link
Contributor Author

brunnels commented May 5, 2014

Ohh, don't want to use memcached but memcache. Will see what I can work out.

@shaneharter
Copy link
Owner

Any reason why?

In my experience with this Memcached was more reliable than Memcache --
both are just client libraries.

I've moved to redis some time ago for most of my work so this may have
changed.

Shane

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Benjamin Runnels
[email protected]:

Ohh, don't want to use memcached but memcache. Will see what I can work
out.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/47#issuecomment-42228430
.

@brunnels
Copy link
Contributor Author

brunnels commented May 5, 2014

I have memcache installed already. lol

@shaneharter
Copy link
Owner

well for the most part they should be drop-in replacements.

in prod, unless things have changed since I last investigated this, I'd
certainly go w/ memcached

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Benjamin Runnels
[email protected]:

I have memcache installed already. lol


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/47#issuecomment-42234589
.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants