We now only expose mock_template as a helper in run_test.
This has the following advantages:
* less boilerplate at the top of the file
* more surgical control with setting exercise_templates
* no more "f" hack (or render_foo consts)
* we force devs to explicitly mock the template
See frontend_tests/zjsunit for the substantive changes.
All the changes to the tests are very mechanical in nature.
Use fully resolvable request paths because we need to be able to refer
to third party modules, and to increase uniformity and explicitness.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
A bunch of tests were mutating the same message.
Now they just make their own copy.
I introduce the name "sample_message" for the common
message, but I remove the two bogus reactions, and
the "warning" test now just creates its own
test-specific data.
This is a deceptively ugly diff. It makes
the actual code way more tidy.
I basically inlined some calls to mock_module
and put some statements in lexical order.
We now just use a module._load hook to inject
stubs into our code.
For conversion purposes I temporarily maintain
the API of rewiremock, apart from the enable/disable
pieces, but I will make a better wrapper in an
upcoming commit.
We can detect when rewiremock is called after
zrequire now, and I fix all the violations in
this commit, mostly by using override.
We can also detect when a mock is needlessly
created, and I fix all the violations in this
commit.
The one minor nuisance that this commit introduces
is that you can only stub out modules in the Zulip
source tree, which is now static/js. This should
not really be a problem--there are usually better
techniques to deal with third party depenencies.
In the prior commit I show a typical workaround,
which is to create a one-line wrapper in your
test code. It's often the case that you can simply
use override(), as well.
In passing I kill off `reset_modules`, and I
eliminated the second argument to zrequire,
which dates back to pre-es6 days.
We now only assign target once, rather than
assigning it then overwriting it for the
not-sent-by-me use case.
I tried to extract a "selector" here but the linter
complained.
Splitting up the tests here ensures we don't
needlessly do extra work here. (In the prior
clumsy implementation, the second test that
I split out here would fail due to the lack
of us setting up the jquery stub.)
Callers can either explicitly pass in children,
stub out $(...)[0] as needed, or just
circumvent jQuery complications with override.
Note the reactions test was broken before,
since $(...)[0] was always returning the same
stub.
We no longer export make_zjquery().
We now instead have a singleton zjquery instance
that we attach to global.$ in index.js.
We call $.clear_all_elements() before each module.
(We will soon get even more aggressive about doing
it in run_test.)
Test functions can still override $ with set_global.
A good example of this is copy_and_paste using the
real jquery module.
We no longer exempt $ as a global variable, so
test modules that use the zjquery $ need to do:
const $ = require("../zjsunit/zjquery");
This commit replaces `with_field` calls to
use the override style instead.
`override` is preferred since it makes sure
the stubbed function is actually called,
while `with_field` doesn't, which makes it
hard to spot dead code.
This commit replaces all `with_stub` calls and
explicitly calls `make_stub` instead.
The `with_stub` helper does not add much clarity
hence we now use scoped stub objects instead.
This de-indents some blocks where scoping isn't
required, for example when there is a single
stub object inside a `run_test` function.
With this change, we also need to explicitly
assert `num_calls`.
We still need to write to these globals with set_global because the
code being tested reads from them, but the tests themselves should
never need to read from them.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulip.com>
For the lines of code that I changed here, we were
getting field reports that the below code
was getting `undefined`:
emoji.all_realm_emojis.get(r.emoji_code)
It's not really clear to me how this could happen,
but we definitely should fail softly here. We
still report it as an error, but we let the function
return and don't trigger a TypeError.
If there's a legitimate reason for realms to delete
realm emojis, we should either downgrade this to a
warning or consider a strategy of back-fixing messages
when realm emojis get deleted.
Steve Howell
Riken Shah
Aman Agrawal
Anders Kaseorg
Abhijeet Prasad Bodas
Vishnu KS