2016-08-18 22:31:42 +02:00
|
|
|
# Backend Django tests
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-20 02:56:43 +02:00
|
|
|
## Overview
|
2016-08-18 22:31:42 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-20 02:56:43 +02:00
|
|
|
Zulip uses the Django framework for its Python back end. We
|
|
|
|
use the testing framework from
|
|
|
|
[django.test](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/topics/testing/)
|
|
|
|
to test our code. We have over a thousand automated tests that verify that
|
|
|
|
our backend works as expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All changes to the Zulip backend code should be supported by tests. We
|
|
|
|
enforce our testing culture during code review, and we also use
|
|
|
|
coverage tools to measure how well we test our code. We mostly use
|
|
|
|
tests to prevent regressions in our code, but the tests can have
|
|
|
|
ancillary benefits such as documenting interfaces and influencing
|
|
|
|
the design of our software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have worked on other Django projects that use unit testing, you
|
|
|
|
will probably find familiar patterns in Zulip's code. This document
|
|
|
|
describes how to write tests for the Zulip back end, with a particular
|
|
|
|
emphasis on areas where we have either wrapped Django's test framework
|
|
|
|
or just done things that are kind of unique in Zulip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Running tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our tests live in `zerver/tests/`. You can run them with
|
|
|
|
`./tools/test-backend`. It generally takes about a minute to run
|
|
|
|
the entire test suite. When you are in iterative mode, you
|
|
|
|
can run individual tests or individual modules, following the
|
|
|
|
dotted.test.name convention below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cd /srv/zulip
|
|
|
|
./tools/test-backend zerver.tests.tests.WorkerTest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many command line options for running Zulip tests, such
|
|
|
|
as a `--verbose` option. The
|
|
|
|
best way to learn the options is to use the online help:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
./tools/test-backend -h
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We also have ways to instrument our tests for finding code coverage,
|
|
|
|
URL coverage, and slow tests. Use the `-h` option to discover these
|
|
|
|
features. We also have a `--profile` option to facilitate profiling
|
|
|
|
tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another thing to note is that our tests generally "fail fast," i.e. they
|
|
|
|
stop at the first sign of trouble. This is generally a good thing for
|
|
|
|
iterative development, but you can override this behavior with the
|
|
|
|
`--nonfatal-errors` option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## How to write tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before you write your first tests of Zulip, it is worthwhile to read
|
|
|
|
the rest of this document, and you can also read some of the existing tests
|
|
|
|
in `zerver/tests` to get a feel for the patterns we use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good practice is to get a "failing test" before you start to implement
|
|
|
|
your feature. First, it is a useful exercise to understand what needs to happen
|
|
|
|
in your tests before you write the code, as it can help drive out simple
|
|
|
|
design or help you make incremental progress on a large feature. Second,
|
|
|
|
you want to avoid introducing tests that give false positives. Ensuring
|
|
|
|
that a test fails before you implement the feature ensures that if somebody
|
|
|
|
accidentally regresses the feature in the future, the test will catch
|
|
|
|
the regression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another important file to skim is
|
|
|
|
[zerver/lib/test_helpers.py](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/master/zerver/lib/test_helpers.py),
|
2016-08-23 02:08:42 +02:00
|
|
|
which contains test helpers and our `ZulipTestCase` class.
|
2016-08-20 02:56:43 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Setting up data for tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All tests start with the same fixture data. (The tests themselves
|
|
|
|
update the database, but they do so inside a transaction that gets
|
|
|
|
rolled back after each of the tests complete. For more details on how the
|
|
|
|
fixture data gets set up, refer to `tools/setup/generate-fixtures`.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fixture data includes a few users that are named after
|
|
|
|
Shakesepeare characters, and they are part of the "zulip.com" realm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, you will also do some explicit data setup of your own. Here
|
2016-08-23 02:08:42 +02:00
|
|
|
are a couple useful methods in ZulipTestCase:
|
2016-08-20 02:56:43 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- common_subscribe_to_streams
|
|
|
|
- send_message
|
2016-10-21 23:23:25 +02:00
|
|
|
- make_stream
|
2016-08-20 02:56:43 +02:00
|
|
|
- subscribe_to_stream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More typically, you will use methods directly from the backend code.
|
|
|
|
(This ensures more end-to-end testing, and avoids false positives from
|
|
|
|
tests that might not consider ancillary parts of data setup that could
|
|
|
|
influence tests results.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some example action methods that tests may use for data setup:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- check_send_message
|
|
|
|
- do_change_is_admin
|
|
|
|
- do_create_user
|
|
|
|
- do_make_stream_private
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Zulip Testing Philosophy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there is one word to describe Zulip's philosophy for writing tests,
|
|
|
|
it is probably "flexible." (Hopefully "thorough" goes without saying.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When in doubt, unless speed concerns are prohibitive,
|
|
|
|
you usually want your tests to be somewhat end-to-end, particularly
|
|
|
|
for testing endpoints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are some of the testing strategies that you will see in the Zulip
|
|
|
|
test suite...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Endpoint tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We strive to test all of our URL endpoints. The vast majority of Zulip
|
|
|
|
endpoints support a JSON interface. Regardless of the interface, an
|
|
|
|
endpoint test generally follows this pattern:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Set up the data.
|
|
|
|
- Login with `self.login()` or set up an API key.
|
|
|
|
- Use a Zulip test helper to hit the endpoint.
|
|
|
|
- Assert that the result was either a success or failure.
|
|
|
|
- Check the data that comes back from the endpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, if you are doing endpoint tests, you will want to create a
|
2016-08-23 02:08:42 +02:00
|
|
|
test class that is a subclass of `ZulipTestCase`, which will provide
|
2016-08-20 02:56:43 +02:00
|
|
|
you helper methods like the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- api_auth
|
|
|
|
- assert_json_error
|
|
|
|
- assert_json_success
|
|
|
|
- client_get
|
|
|
|
- client_post
|
|
|
|
- get_api_key
|
|
|
|
- get_streams
|
|
|
|
- login
|
|
|
|
- send_message
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Library tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For certain Zulip library functions, especially the ones that are
|
|
|
|
not intrinsically tied to Django, we use a classic unit testing
|
|
|
|
approach of calling the function and inspecting the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For these types of tests, you will often use methods like
|
|
|
|
`self.assertEqual()`, `self.assertTrue()`, etc., which come with
|
|
|
|
[unittest](https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html#unittest.TestCase)
|
|
|
|
via Django.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Fixture-driven tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Particularly for testing Zulip's integrations with third party systems,
|
|
|
|
we strive to have a highly data-driven approach to testing. To give a
|
|
|
|
specific example, when we test our GitHub integration, the test code
|
|
|
|
reads a bunch of sample inputs from a JSON fixture file, feeds them
|
2016-10-18 01:31:50 +02:00
|
|
|
to our GitHub integration code, and then verifies the output against
|
2016-08-20 02:56:43 +02:00
|
|
|
expected values from the same JSON fixture file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our fixtures live in `zerver/fixtures`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Mocks and stubs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We use mocks and stubs for all the typical reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- to more precisely test the target code
|
|
|
|
- to stub out calls to third-party services
|
|
|
|
- to make it so that you can run your tests on the airplane without wifi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For mocking we generally use the "mock" library and use `mock.patch` as
|
|
|
|
a context manager or decorator. We also take advantage of some context managers
|
|
|
|
from Django as well as our own custom helpers. Here is an example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with self.settings(RATE_LIMITING=True):
|
|
|
|
with mock.patch('zerver.decorator.rate_limit_user') as rate_limit_mock:
|
|
|
|
api_result = my_webhook(request)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
self.assertTrue(rate_limit_mock.called)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow [this link](settings.html#testing-non-default-settings) for more
|
|
|
|
information on the "settings" context manager.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Template tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In [zerver/tests/test_templates.py](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/master/zerver/tests/test_templates.py)
|
|
|
|
we have a test that renders all of our back end templates with
|
|
|
|
a "dummy" context, to make sure the templates don't have obvious
|
|
|
|
errors. (These tests won't catch all types of errors; they are
|
|
|
|
just a first line of defense.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### SQL performance tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A common class of bug with Django systems is to handle bulk data in
|
|
|
|
an inefficient way, where the back end populates objects for join tables
|
|
|
|
with a series of individual queries that give O(N) latency. (The
|
|
|
|
remedy is often just to call `select_related()`, but sometimes it
|
|
|
|
requires a more subtle restructuring of the code.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We try to prevent these bugs in our tests by using a context manager
|
|
|
|
called `queries_captured()` that captures the SQL queries used by
|
|
|
|
the back end during a particular operation. We make assertions about
|
|
|
|
those queries, often simply asserting that the number of queries is
|
|
|
|
below some threshold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Event-based tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Zulip back end has a mechanism where it will fetch initial data
|
|
|
|
for a client from the database, and then it will subsequently apply
|
|
|
|
some queued up events to that data to the data structure before notifying
|
|
|
|
the client. The `EventsRegisterTest.do_test()` helper helps tests
|
|
|
|
verify that the application of those events via apply_events() produces
|
|
|
|
the same data structure as performing an action that generates said event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a bit esoteric, but if you read the tests, you will see some of
|
|
|
|
the patterns. You can also learn more about our event system in the
|
|
|
|
[new feature tutorial](new-feature-tutorial.html#handle-database-interactions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Negative tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to verify error handling paths for endpoints, particularly
|
|
|
|
situations where we need to ensure that we don't return results to clients
|
|
|
|
with improper authentication or with limited authorization. A typical test
|
|
|
|
will call the endpoint with either a non-logged in client, an invalid API
|
|
|
|
key, or missing input fields. Then the test will call `assert_json_error()`
|
|
|
|
to verify that the endpoint is properly failing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Testing considerations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some things to consider when writing new tests:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Duplication** We try to avoid excessive duplication in tests.
|
|
|
|
If you have several tests repeating the same type of test setup,
|
|
|
|
consider making a setUp() method or a test helper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Network independence** Our tests should still work if you don't
|
|
|
|
have an internet connection. For third party clients, you can simulate
|
|
|
|
their behavior using fixture data. For third party servers, you can
|
|
|
|
typically simulate their behavior using mocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Coverage** We have 100% line coverage on several of our backend
|
|
|
|
modules. You can use the `--coverage` option to generate coverage
|
|
|
|
reports, and new code should have 100% coverage, which generally requires
|
|
|
|
testing not only the "happy path" but also error handling code and
|
|
|
|
edge cases.
|