mirror of https://github.com/zulip/zulip.git
203 lines
7.7 KiB
Markdown
203 lines
7.7 KiB
Markdown
# Testing and writing tests
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
Zulip has a full test suite that includes many components. The most
|
|
important components are documented in depth in their own sections:
|
|
|
|
- [Django](testing-with-django.html): backend Python tests
|
|
- [Casper](testing-with-casper.html): end-to-end UI tests
|
|
- [Node](testing-with-node.html): unit tests for JS front end code
|
|
- [Linters](linters.html): Our parallel linter suite
|
|
- [Travis CI details](travis.html): How all of these run in Travis CI
|
|
|
|
This document covers more general testing issues, such as how to run the
|
|
entire test suite, how to troubleshoot database issues, how to manually
|
|
test the front end, and how to plan for the future upgrade to Python3.
|
|
|
|
We also document [how to manually test the app](manual-testing.html).
|
|
|
|
## Running tests
|
|
|
|
Zulip tests must be run inside a Zulip development environment; if
|
|
you're using Vagrant, you will need to enter the Vagrant environment
|
|
before running the tests:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
vagrant ssh
|
|
cd /srv/zulip
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Then, to run the full Zulip test suite, do this:
|
|
```
|
|
./tools/test-all
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This runs the linter (`tools/lint`) plus all of our test suites;
|
|
they can all be run separately (just read `tools/test-all` to see
|
|
them). You can also run individual tests which can save you a lot of
|
|
time debugging a test failure, e.g.:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
./tools/lint # Runs all the linters in parallel
|
|
./tools/test-backend zerver.tests.test_bugdown.BugdownTest.test_inline_youtube
|
|
./tools/test-backend BugdownTest # Run `test-backend --help` for more options
|
|
./tools/test-js-with-casper 09-navigation.js
|
|
./tools/test-js-with-node utils.js
|
|
```
|
|
The above setup instructions include the first-time setup of test
|
|
databases, but you may need to rebuild the test database occasionally
|
|
if you're working on new database migrations. To do this, run:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
./tools/do-destroy-rebuild-test-database
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Possible testing issues
|
|
|
|
- When running the test suite, if you get an error like this:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
sqlalchemy.exc.ProgrammingError: (ProgrammingError) function ts_match_locs_array(unknown, text, tsquery) does not exist
|
|
LINE 2: ...ECT message_id, flags, subject, rendered_content, ts_match_l...
|
|
^
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
… then you need to install tsearch-extras, described
|
|
above. Afterwards, re-run the `init*-db` and the
|
|
`do-destroy-rebuild*-database` scripts.
|
|
|
|
- When building the development environment using Vagrant and the LXC
|
|
provider, if you encounter permissions errors, you may need to
|
|
`chown -R 1000:$(whoami) /path/to/zulip` on the host before running
|
|
`vagrant up` in order to ensure that the synced directory has the
|
|
correct owner during provision. This issue will arise if you run `id
|
|
username` on the host where `username` is the user running Vagrant
|
|
and the output is anything but 1000.
|
|
This seems to be caused by Vagrant behavior; for more information,
|
|
see [the vagrant-lxc FAQ entry about shared folder permissions][lxc-sf].
|
|
|
|
[lxc-sf]: https://github.com/fgrehm/vagrant-lxc/wiki/FAQ#help-my-shared-folders-have-the-wrong-owner
|
|
|
|
### Internet access inside test suites
|
|
|
|
As a policy matter, the Zulip test suites should never make outgoing
|
|
HTTP or other network requests. This is important for 2 major
|
|
reasons:
|
|
|
|
* Tests that make outgoing Internet requests will fail when the user
|
|
isn't on the Internet.
|
|
* Tests that make outgoing Internet requests often have a hidden
|
|
dependency on the uptime of a third-party service, and will fail
|
|
nondeterministically if that service has a temporary outage.
|
|
Nondeterministically failing tests can be a big waste of
|
|
developer time, and we try to avoid them wherever possible.
|
|
|
|
As a result, Zulip's major test suites should never access the
|
|
Internet directly. Since code in Zulip does need to access the
|
|
Internet (e.g. to access various third-party APIs), this means that
|
|
the Zulip tests use mocking to basically hardcode (for the purposes of
|
|
the test) what responses should be used for any outgoing Internet
|
|
requests that Zulip would make in the code path being tested.
|
|
|
|
This is easy to do using test fixtures (a fancy word for fixed data
|
|
used in tests) and the `mock.patch` function to specify what HTTP
|
|
response should be used by the tests for every outgoing HTTP (or other
|
|
network) request. Consult
|
|
[our guide on mocking](testing-with-django.html#zulip-mocking-practices) to
|
|
learn how to mock network requests easily; there are also a number of
|
|
examples throughout the codebase.
|
|
|
|
We partially enforce this policy in the main Django/backend test suite
|
|
by overriding certain library functions that are used in outgoing HTTP
|
|
code paths (`httplib2.Http().request`, `requests.request`, etc.) to
|
|
throw an exception in the backend tests. While this is enforcement is
|
|
not complete (there a lot of other ways to use the Internet from
|
|
Python), it is easy to do and catches most common cases of new code
|
|
dependning on Internet access.
|
|
|
|
This enforcement code results in the following exception:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
File "tools/test-backend", line 120, in internet_guard
|
|
raise Exception("Outgoing network requests are not allowed in the Zulip tests."
|
|
Exception: Outgoing network requests are not allowed in the Zulip tests.
|
|
...
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### Documentation tests
|
|
|
|
The one exception to this policy is our documentation tests, which
|
|
will attempt to verify that the links included in our documentation
|
|
aren't broken. Those tests end up failing nondeterministically fairly
|
|
often, which is unfortunate, but there's simply no other correct way
|
|
to verify links other than attempting to access them.
|
|
|
|
## Schema and initial data changes
|
|
|
|
If you change the database schema or change the initial test data, you
|
|
have to regenerate the pristine test database by running
|
|
`tools/do-destroy-rebuild-test-database`.
|
|
|
|
## Wiping the test databases
|
|
|
|
You should first try running: `tools/do-destroy-rebuild-test-database`
|
|
|
|
If that fails you should try to do:
|
|
|
|
sudo -u postgres psql
|
|
> DROP DATABASE zulip_test;
|
|
> DROP DATABASE zulip_test_template;
|
|
|
|
and then run `tools/do-destroy-rebuild-test-database`
|
|
|
|
### Recreating the postgres cluster
|
|
|
|
> **warning**
|
|
>
|
|
> **This is irreversible, so do it with care, and never do this anywhere
|
|
> in production.**
|
|
|
|
If your postgres cluster (collection of databases) gets totally trashed
|
|
permissions-wise, and you can't otherwise repair it, you can recreate
|
|
it. On Ubuntu:
|
|
|
|
sudo pg_dropcluster --stop 9.1 main
|
|
sudo pg_createcluster --locale=en_US.utf8 --start 9.1 main
|
|
|
|
## Local browser testing (local app + web browser)
|
|
|
|
This section is about troubleshooting your local development environment.
|
|
|
|
There is a [separate manual testing doc](manual-testing.html) that
|
|
enumerates things you can test as part of manual QA.
|
|
|
|
### Clearing the development database
|
|
|
|
You can use:
|
|
|
|
./tools/do-destroy-rebuild-database
|
|
|
|
to drop the database on your development environment and repopulate
|
|
your it with the Shakespeare characters and some test messages between
|
|
them. This is run automatically as part of the development
|
|
environment setup process, but is occasionally useful when you want to
|
|
return to a clean state for testing.
|
|
|
|
### JavaScript manual testing
|
|
|
|
`debug.js` has some tools for profiling JavaScript code, including:
|
|
|
|
- \`print\_elapsed\_time\`: Wrap a function with it to print the time
|
|
that function takes to the JavaScript console.
|
|
- \`IterationProfiler\`: Profile part of looping constructs (like a
|
|
for loop or \$.each). You mark sections of the iteration body and
|
|
the IterationProfiler will sum the costs of those sections over all
|
|
iterations.
|
|
|
|
Chrome has a very good debugger and inspector in its developer tools.
|
|
Firebug for Firefox is also pretty good. They both have profilers, but
|
|
Chrome's is a sampling profiler while Firebug's is an instrumenting
|
|
profiler. Using them both can be helpful because they provide different
|
|
information.
|