-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Optimize context caching in the TestContext framework #32289
Comments
Hi @seregamorph, Thanks for sharing your ideas as well as your prototype! 👍 Those are indeed very interesting approaches to the task at hand. I especially like the idea of executing test classes that share the same context configuration sequentially. Though, we might be able to achieve a similar effect by tracking all test classes that use the same context configuration and closing after the last one, regardless of the order in which they are executed (for example, by decrementing a counter and eagerly closing the context once we hit 0). I do have some concerns, however, and I'll add a few of them here as "food for thought".
In any case, I have assigned this to the 6.2.x milestone since I think it's worth investigating what's possible. |
This has the downside of keeping the context (and all the resources attached to it) for a longer period of time. I think it's important to take into account what @seregamorph and team have been doing here. Speaking of which, I'd like to see how we can help them to submit a PR given they already have an implementation. |
That's right! Maybe for this reason it makes sense to plan possible changes in junit-platform first? Such changes can unify the approach for all three test frameworks (JUnit 4 via vintage-engine, Jupiter, TestNG via testng-engine; maybe spock), as well as for all running environments (maven, gradle, IDEA). |
One more possible approach that can allow to avoid introducing new jar artifacts in the group of spring-framework:
By the way, OOM is not an only reason why this new behaviour can make sense:
|
@sbrannen @marcphilipp thanks for your livestream presentation today. Also I see this issue was added to 6.2.x milestone, but it seems that just released |
The Spring TestContext Framework (TCF) uses a pretty convenient and flexible approach to create and subsequently reuse the context by aggregate
MergedContextConfiguration
. However it has a drawback: in a large test suite there can eventually be created too many parallel active contexts, consuming a lot of resources like large thread pools or Testcontainers beans.There are several good practices to reduce the number of independent configurations like introducing common test super classes and reducing usage of
@MockBean
annotations. Also we can reduce the overhead of each new context like statically defined/reusable Testcontainers containers.Unfortunately, these approaches do not work very well for big distributed projects with many teams contributing independently. So eventually OOM and other problems arise.
As a mitigation there can be some urgent fixes like using
@DirtiesContext
or thespring.test.context.cache.maxSize=1
option as suggested by @snicoll (spring-projects/spring-boot#15654). The suggested approach fixed the problem, but it has a disadvantage as well: the total test execution time increased, due to the larger number of context re-initializations.I had the same problem while working with a https://miro.com monolith server application, and I've found two more approaches to reduce the number of active contexts.
Smart (Auto) DirtiesContext
For single-threaded test executions, we can know the sequence (list) of tests in the very beginning of the suite. It's easy to calculate the
MergedContextConfiguration
per each class - and now it's possible to define a custom SmartDirtiesTestExecutionListener with anafterTestClass
implementation pretty similar to standardDirtiesContextTestExecutionListener
, but there is binary logic: if the current test class is the last test class using a given context configuration, close the context by marking it as dirty.This trivial approach significantly reduced the number of active contexts and decreased the time of test execution (as fewer resources like CPU were consumed).
The only problem was that on the level of the TCF it's not possible to access the suite, so I originally implemented a custom TestNG listener, and later the JUnit 5 implementation was added.
Test reordering
We can do even better if the test execution sequence is reordered - so we can group test classes that share the same context configuration sequentially, and the number of active spring contexts will never exceed one.
The following chart demonstrates the approach (same color = same
MergedContextConfiguration
):It's not possible to reorder tests on the level of the TCF, but it's possible to do so on the level of:
Metrics: fewer contexts and faster
Here is a sample test suite:
On the horizontal axis there is a timeline and on the vertical axis the number of active spring contexts (calculated each 10 sec). As you can see, the Smart DirtiesContext + test reordering (yellow) is always better - it has fewer active contexts, and the total time of test execution is the smallest (because of less CPU consumption + minimal context re-initialization).
The following chart is about number of parallel active Testcontainers docker containers (represented as spring Beans) for another test suite and is even more representative (unfortunately I cannot compare with
cache.maxSize=1
approach):Prototype
I've made a library https://github.com/seregamorph/spring-test-smart-context that implements this approach for JUnit Jupiter, TestNG, and even JUnit 4 via the vintage-engine to demonstrate the approach.
@snicoll and @marcphilipp were so kind to give some initial feedback, and then Stéphane suggested to submit a ticket to continue discussion here.
I understand that the current implementation of the TCF conceptually does not allow this approach as it works on another level, but this can be a possible direction of library evolution (for both spring-framework and junit-platform). As this approach has significant advantages like flexibility and freedom for engineers - they do not need to care too much regarding the optimizations.
Spring team, curious about your opinion. cc @sbrannen
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: