mirror of https://github.com/zulip/zulip.git
232 lines
9.2 KiB
Markdown
232 lines
9.2 KiB
Markdown
# JavaScript/TypeScript unit tests
|
|
|
|
Our node-based unit tests system is the preferred way to test
|
|
JavaScript/TypeScript code in Zulip. We prefer it over the [Casper
|
|
black-box whole-app testing](../testing/testing-with-casper.html),
|
|
system since it is much (>100x) faster and also easier to do correctly
|
|
than the Casper system.
|
|
|
|
You can run tests as follow:
|
|
```
|
|
tools/test-js-with-node
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The JS unit tests are written to work with node. You can find them
|
|
in `frontend_tests/node_tests`. Here is an example test from
|
|
`frontend_tests/node_tests/stream_data.js`:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
(function test_get_by_id() {
|
|
stream_data.clear_subscriptions();
|
|
var id = 42;
|
|
var sub = {
|
|
name: 'Denmark',
|
|
subscribed: true,
|
|
color: 'red',
|
|
stream_id: id
|
|
};
|
|
stream_data.add_sub('Denmark', sub);
|
|
sub = stream_data.get_sub('Denmark');
|
|
assert.equal(sub.color, 'red');
|
|
sub = stream_data.get_sub_by_id(id);
|
|
assert.equal(sub.color, 'red');
|
|
}());
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The names of the node tests generally align with the names of the
|
|
modules they test. If you modify a JS module in `static/js` you should
|
|
see if there are corresponding test in `frontend_tests/node_tests`. If
|
|
there are, you should strive to follow the patterns of the existing tests
|
|
and add your own tests.
|
|
|
|
## How the node tests work
|
|
|
|
Unlike the [casper unit tests](../testing/testing-with-casper.html),
|
|
which use the `phantomjs` browser connected to a running Zulip
|
|
deveopment server, our node unit tests don't have a browser, don't
|
|
talk to a server, and generally don't use a complete virtual DOM (a
|
|
handful of tests use the `jsdom` library for this purpose) because
|
|
those slow down the tests a lot, and often don't add much value.
|
|
|
|
Instead, the preferred model for our unit tests is to mock DOM
|
|
manipulations (which in Zulip are almost exclusively done via
|
|
`jQuery`) using a custom library
|
|
[zjquery](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/master/frontend_tests/zjsunit/zjquery.js).
|
|
|
|
The
|
|
[unit test file](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/master/frontend_tests/node_tests/zjquery.js)
|
|
for `zjquery` is designed to be also serve as nice documentation for
|
|
how to use `zjquery`, and is **highly recommended reading** for anyone
|
|
working on or debugging the Zulip node tests.
|
|
|
|
Conceptually, the `zjquery` library provides minimal versions of most
|
|
`jQuery` DOM manipulation functions, and has a convenient system for
|
|
letting you setup return values for more complex functions. For
|
|
example, if the code you'd like to test calls `$obj.find()`, you can
|
|
use `$obj.set_find_results(selector, $value)` to setup `zjquery` so
|
|
that calls to `$obj.find(selector)` will return `$value`. See the unit
|
|
test file for details.
|
|
|
|
This process of substituting `jQuery` functions with our own code for
|
|
testing purposes is known as "stubbing". `zjquery` does not stub all
|
|
possible interactions with the dom, as such, you may need to write out
|
|
the stub for a function you're calling in your patch. Typically the stub
|
|
is just placed in the test file, to prevent bloating of `zjquery`
|
|
with functions that are only used in a single test.
|
|
|
|
If you need to stub, you will see an error of this form:
|
|
`Error: You must create a stub for $("#foo").bar`
|
|
|
|
The `zjquery` library itself is only about 500 lines of code, and can
|
|
also be a useful resource if you're having trouble debugging DOM
|
|
access in the unit tests.
|
|
|
|
It is typically a good idea to figure out how to stub a given function
|
|
based on how other functions have been stubbed in the same file.
|
|
|
|
## Handling dependencies in unit tests
|
|
|
|
The other big challenge with doing unit tests for a JavaScript project
|
|
is that often one wants to limit the scope the production code being
|
|
run, just to avoid doing extra setup work that isn't relevant to the
|
|
code you're trying to test. For that reason, each unit test file
|
|
explicitly declares all of the modules it depends on, with a few
|
|
different types of declarations depending on whether we want to:
|
|
|
|
- Exercise the module's real code for deeper, more realistic testing?
|
|
- Stub out the module's interface for more control, speed, and
|
|
isolation?
|
|
- Do some combination of the above?
|
|
|
|
For all the modules where you want to run actual code, add statements
|
|
like the following toward the top of your test file:
|
|
|
|
> zrequire('util');
|
|
> zrequire('stream_data');
|
|
> zrequire('Filter', 'js/filter');
|
|
|
|
For modules that you want to completely stub out, use a pattern like
|
|
this:
|
|
|
|
> set_global('page_params', {
|
|
> email: 'bob@zulip.com'
|
|
> });
|
|
>
|
|
> // then maybe further down
|
|
> page_params.email = 'alice@zulip.com';
|
|
|
|
One can similarly stub out functions in a module's exported interface
|
|
with either `noop` functions or actual code.
|
|
|
|
Finally, there's the hybrid situation, where you want to borrow some
|
|
of a module's real functionality but stub out other pieces. Obviously,
|
|
this is a pretty strong code smell that the other module might be
|
|
lacking in cohesion, but sometimes it's not worth going down the
|
|
rabbit hole of trying to improve that. The pattern here is this:
|
|
|
|
> // Import real code.
|
|
> zrequire('narrow_state');
|
|
>
|
|
> // And later...
|
|
> narrow_state.stream = function () {
|
|
> return 'office';
|
|
> };
|
|
|
|
## Creating new test modules
|
|
|
|
The test runner (`index.js`) automatically runs all .js files in the
|
|
`frontend_tests/node directory`, so you can simply start editing a file
|
|
in that directory to create a new test.
|
|
|
|
The nodes tests rely on JS files that use the module pattern. For example, to
|
|
test the `foobar.js` file, you would first ensure that code like below
|
|
is at the bottom of `foobar.js`:
|
|
|
|
> if (typeof module !== 'undefined') {
|
|
> module.exports = foobar;
|
|
> }
|
|
|
|
This means `foobar.js` follow the CommonJS module pattern, so it can be
|
|
required in Node.js, which runs our tests.
|
|
|
|
## Coverage reports
|
|
|
|
You can automatically generate coverage reports for the JavaScript unit
|
|
tests like this:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
tools/test-js-with-node --coverage
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If tests pass, you will get instructions to view coverage reports
|
|
in your browser.
|
|
|
|
Note that modules that we don't test *at all* aren't listed in the
|
|
report, so this tends to overstate how good our overall coverage is,
|
|
but it's accurate for individual files. You can also click a filename
|
|
to see the specific statements and branches not tested. 100% branch
|
|
coverage isn't necessarily possible, but getting to at least 80%
|
|
branch coverage is a good goal.
|
|
|
|
The overall project goal is to get to 100% node test coverage on all
|
|
data/logic modules (UI modules are lower priority for unit testing).
|
|
|
|
# Editor debugger integration
|
|
|
|
Our node test system is pretty simple, and it's possible to configure
|
|
the native debugger features of popular editors to allow stepping
|
|
through the code. Below we document the editors where someone has put
|
|
together detailed instructions for how to do so. Contributions of
|
|
notes for other editors are welcome!
|
|
|
|
## Webstorm integration setup
|
|
|
|
These instructions assume you're using the Vagrant development environment.
|
|
|
|
1. Setup [Vagrant in WebStorm][vagrant-webstorm].
|
|
|
|
2. In WebStorm, navigate to `Preferences -> Tools -> Vagrant` and
|
|
configure the following:
|
|
|
|
* `Instance folder` should be the root of the `zulip` repository on
|
|
your host (where the Vagrantfile is located).
|
|
* `Provider` should be `virtualbox` on macOS and Docker on Linux
|
|
* In `Boxes`, choose the one used for Zulip (unless you use
|
|
Virtualbox for other things, there should only be one option).
|
|
|
|
You shouldn't need to set these additional settings:
|
|
* `Vagrant executable` should already be correctly `vagrant`.
|
|
* `Environment Variables` is not needed.
|
|
|
|
3. You'll now need to set up a WebStorm "Debug Configuration". Open
|
|
the `Run/Debug Configuration` menu and create a new `Node.js` config:
|
|
1. Under `Node interpreter:` click the 3 dots to the right side and
|
|
click on the little plus in the bottom left of the `Node.js
|
|
Interpreters` window.
|
|
1. Select `Add Remote...`.
|
|
1. In the `Configure Node.js Remote Interpreter`, window select `Vagrant`
|
|
1. Wait for WebStorm to connect to Vagrant. This will be displayed
|
|
by the `Vagrant Host URL` section updating to contain the Vagrant
|
|
SSH url, e.g. `ssh://vagrant@127.0.0.1:2222`.
|
|
1. **Set the `Node.js interpreter path` to `/usr/local/bin/node`**
|
|
1. Hit `OK` 2 times to get back to the `Run/Debug Configurations` window.
|
|
1. Under `Working Directory` select the root `zulip` directory.
|
|
1. Under `JavaScript file`, enter `frontend_tests/zjsunit/index.js`
|
|
-- this is the root script for Zulip's node unit tests.
|
|
|
|
Congratulations! You've now setup the integration.
|
|
|
|
## Running tests with the debugger
|
|
|
|
To use Webstorm to debug a given node test file, do the following:
|
|
|
|
1. Under `Application parameters` choose the node test file that you
|
|
are trying to test (e.g. `frontend_tests/node_tests/message_store.js`).
|
|
1. Under `Path Mappings`, set `Project Root` to `/srv/zulip`
|
|
(i.e. where the `zulip` Git repository is mounted in the Vagrant guest).
|
|
1. Use the WebStorm debugger; see [this overview][webstorm-debugging]
|
|
for details on how to use it.
|
|
|
|
[webstorm-debugging]: https://blog.jetbrains.com/webstorm/2018/01/how-to-debug-with-webstorm/
|
|
[vagrant-webstorm]: https://www.jetbrains.com/help/webstorm/vagrant-support.html?section=Windows%20or%20Linux
|