Extend README.md by runnable default config core-its

[Pankraz76]

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

• Your pull request should address just one issue, without pulling in other changes.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
  Note that commits might be squashed by a maintainer on merge.
• Write unit tests that match behavioral changes, where the tests fail if the changes to the runtime are not applied.
  This may not always be possible but is a best-practice.
• Run mvn verify to make sure basic checks pass.
  A more thorough check will be performed on your pull request automatically.
• You have run the Core IT successfully.

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

As requested by @gnodet its seem to be stable now working as expected and quoted on introduction:

• https://maven.apache.org/core-its/

now passing mvn clean test -Prun-its in roow dir.

kindly request feedback, thanks.

[gnodet]

I don't recall I was asking for this change, quite the opposite. I don't really see the benefits here, as the ITs are not really compiled against the current build, they are only executed. So adding those to the build by default does not much bring any benefit, but just adds modules that are not used unless you use -Prun-its, in which case, they are already built.

[Pankraz76]

I kind of understand, but not in detail to be honest. From my perspective, it provides an easy executable command to apply what’s the default. So, this README change feels a bit unrelated.

On the other hand, these kinds of tests are not really designed to be executed by default. It’s more about providing code awareness. The tests work now, luckily, so it’s definitely an improvement. But still, it’s not suitable for running massive tasks locally on default.

It’s about including the code that’s already there and treating it as part of the project — which it is, since it was explicitly moved from an external repo into this one.

This also improves setup time, since you no longer need to manually import external projects. Of course, one could argue this is not something touched regularly, but if that’s the case, then why was it moved so close?

Long story short: the code is now tightly integrated and ready to be excluded. Imho it makes more sense to include it and treat it as a fundamental part of the project.

Assuming it has its own Maven parent, it might not even be necessary to include — but that was an additional motivation to do so, in order to align with code conventions, as seen in:

• Apply StreamRulesRecipes #11159
• Issue #17487: Add StreamRulesRecipes maven-parent#496

In the end, it doesn’t matter too much.

[gnodet]

I kind of understand, but not in detail to be honest. From my perspective, it provides an easy executable command to apply what’s the default. So, this README change feels a bit unrelated.

The problem is not the README change, but the addition of the its module by default.

On the other hand, these kinds of tests are not really designed to be executed by default. It’s more about providing code awareness. The tests work now, luckily, so it’s definitely an improvement. But still, it’s not suitable for running massive tasks locally on default.

It’s about including the code that’s already there and treating it as part of the project — which it is, since it was explicitly moved from an external repo into this one.

This also improves setup time, since you no longer need to manually import external projects. Of course, one could argue this is not something touched regularly, but if that’s the case, then why was it moved so close?

They have been moved, because when you develop a new feature, it's a good practice to add an IT to ensure no regression in the future.

Long story short: the code is now tightly integrated and ready to be excluded. Imho it makes more sense to include it and treat it as a fundamental part of the project.

That's exactly my point. The code is not tightly integrated imho. It is a fundamental part of the project, but again, if you don't run the ITs locally, you don't care about building those because the only important thing here is when they are executed. When you develop Java code, this is important, as you could change an API and break other classes. This cannot happen here, as all java code in tests is built against old Maven libraries. So this is purely about the execution result.

Assuming it has its own Maven parent, it might not even be necessary to include — but that was an additional motivation to do so, in order to align with code conventions, as seen in:

• Issue #17487: Apply StreamRulesRecipes #11159
• Issue #17487: Add StreamRulesRecipes maven-parent#496

In the end, it doesn’t matter too much.

Right, especially as everything is checked in CI where the ITs are run, so I really don't see any benefit in including those while not running them.

[Pankraz76]

I kind of understand, but not in detail to be honest. From my perspective, it provides an easy executable command to apply what’s the default. So, this README change feels a bit unrelated.

The problem is not the README change, but the addition of the its module by default.

On the other hand, these kinds of tests are not really designed to be executed by default. It’s more about providing code awareness. The tests work now, luckily, so it’s definitely an improvement. But still, it’s not suitable for running massive tasks locally on default.
It’s about including the code that’s already there and treating it as part of the project — which it is, since it was explicitly moved from an external repo into this one.
This also improves setup time, since you no longer need to manually import external projects. Of course, one could argue this is not something touched regularly, but if that’s the case, then why was it moved so close?

They have been moved, because when you develop a new feature, it's a good practice to add an IT to ensure no regression in the future.

Long story short: the code is now tightly integrated and ready to be excluded. Imho it makes more sense to include it and treat it as a fundamental part of the project.

That's exactly my point. The code is not tightly integrated imho. It is a fundamental part of the project, but again, if you don't run the ITs locally, you don't care about building those because the only important thing here is when they are executed. When you develop Java code, this is important, as you could change an API and break other classes. This cannot happen here, as all java code in tests is built against old Maven libraries. So this is purely about the execution result.

Assuming it has its own Maven parent, it might not even be necessary to include — but that was an additional motivation to do so, in order to align with code conventions, as seen in:

• Issue #17487: Apply StreamRulesRecipes #11159
• Issue #17487: Add StreamRulesRecipes maven-parent#496

In the end, it doesn’t matter too much.

Right, especially as everything is checked in CI where the ITs are run, so I really don't see any benefit in including those while not running them.

Makes sense now considering the broad insides, meric.

[Pankraz76]

seems currently be flaky:

Caused by: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space

[gnodet]

You need to use triple backticks here.

[Pankraz76]

To pass CI? It’s intended to be executable, as it’s the only one ready to use without adjustment, right?

[gnodet]

The rendering is different. When you use triple backticks, GitHub provides a copy button on the upper-right corner. Single backticks are more to be used within sentences.

[slachiewicz]

it's duplicate of line 33