I'm working on writing end-to-end (client) tests in Velocity, and am trying to figure out how to make sure that emails are being sent. I'm currently using Mocha, but I'm willing to switch to another testing framework if it makes this task easier.
You can use a fixture and override the Email send function like this:
Email.send = function (options) {
// store those somewhere like an emailsCollection
emailsCollection.insert(options);
};
Now you can assert on the emailsCollection in your tests
Related
I'm working towards testrail integrations, i want to update testrail after each test pass/fail. Lets day if i've a test like below
it('rightpanel should exist', () => {
//some logic or preparatory work
expect(rightpanel.isLoaded()).to.be.true;
// here i want to know whether above expect statement failed or passed.
// based on it, i want to update test rail by making a webservice call
});
we are using WDIO, is there a better way to integrate to testrail? No one replies on their community forum so, i'm asking here.
With mocha you can use a repoter to manage the results of your tests.
The default reporter is Spec, but if you use json-stream you can attach another process to this stream to send test reports to testrail while executing.
Otherwise, if you don't need to send them in real time, you can use the json reporter and parse them in a single call.
You can also check on github some existing reporter that connects directly to testrail:
https://github.com/CommodoreBeard/mocha-testrail-advanced-reporter
https://github.com/awaragi/mocha-testrail-reporter
complete list
i am unit testing in laravel with Phpunit. The situation is i have to return a model instance from the controller back to the testing class. There i will use the attributes of that object to test an assertion. How can i achieve that?
Currently i am json encoding that instance into the response. And using it in a way that works but is ugly. Need a clearer way.
This is my test class:
/** #test
*/
function authenticated_user_can_create_thread()
{
//Given an authenticated user
$this->actingAs(factory('App\User')->create());
//and a thread
$thread = factory('App\Thread')->make();
//when user submits a form to create a thread
$created_thread = $this->post(route('thread.create'),$thread->toArray());
//the thread can be seen
$this->get(route('threads.show',['channel'=>$created_thread->original->channel->slug,'thread'=>$created_thread->original->id]))
->assertSee($thread->body);
}
and this is the controller method:
public function store(Request $request)
{
$thread = Thread::create([
'user_id'=>auth()->id(),
'title'=>$request->title,
'body'=>$request->body,
'channel_id'=>$request->channel_id,
]);
if(app()->environment() === 'testing')
{
return response()->json($thread); //if request is coming from phpunit/test environment then send back the creted thread object as part of json response
}
else
return redirect()->route('threads.show',['channel'=>$thread->channel->slug,'thread'=>$thread->id]);
}
As you can see in the test class, i am receiving the object returned from controller in the $created_thread variable. However, controller is returning an instance of Illuminate\Foundation\Testing\TestResponse, so the THREAD that is embedded in this response is not easy to extract. You can see i am doing
--> $created_thread->original->channel->slug,'thread'=>$created_thread->original->id]. But i am sure there is a better way of achieving the same thing.
Can anyone please guide me to the right direction?
PHPUnit is a unit testing suite, hence the name. Unit testing is, by
definition, writing tests for each unit -- that is, each class, each
method -- as separately as possible from every other part of the
system. Each thing users could use, you want to try to test that it --
and only it, apart from everything else -- functions as specified.
Your problem is, there is nothing to test. You haven't created any method with logic which could be tested. Testing controllers action is pointless, as it only proves that controllers are working, which is a Laravel creators thing to check.
I have several functions that deal with database interactions. (like readModelById, updateModel, findModels, etc) that I try to use in a functional style.
In OOP, I'd create a class that takes DB-connection-parameters in the constructor, creates the database-connection and save the DB-handle in the instance. The functions then would just use the DB-handle from "this".
What's the best way in FP to deal with this? I don't want to hand around the DB handle throughout the entire application. I thought about partial application on the functions to "bake in" the handle, but that creates ugly boilerplate code, doing it one by one and handing it back.
What's the best practice/design pattern for things like this in FP?
There is a parallel to this in OOP that might suggest the right approach is to take the database resource as parameter. Consider the DB implementation in OOP using SOLID principles. Due to Interface Segregation Principle, you would end up with an interface per DB method and at least one implementation class per interface.
// C#
public interface IGetRegistrations
{
public Task<Registration[]> GetRegistrations(DateTime day);
}
public class GetRegistrationsImpl : IGetRegistrations
{
public Task<Registration[]> GetRegistrations(DateTime day)
{
...
}
private readonly DbResource _db;
public GetRegistrationsImpl(DbResource db)
{
_db = db;
}
}
Then to execute your use case, you pass in only the dependencies you need instead of the whole set of DB operations. (Assume that ISaveRegistration exists and is defined like above).
// C#
public async Task Register(
IGetRegistrations a,
ISaveRegistration b,
RegisterRequest requested
)
{
var registrations = await a.GetRegistrations(requested.Date);
// examine existing registrations and determine request is valid
// throw an exception if not?
...
return await b.SaveRegistration( ... );
}
Somewhere above where this code is called, you have to new up the implementations of these interfaces and provide them with DbResource.
var a = new GetRegistrationsImpl(db);
var b = new SaveRegistrationImpl(db);
...
return await Register(a, b, request);
Note: You could use a DI framework here to attempt to avoid some boilerplate. But I find it to be borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. You pay as much in having to learn a DI framework and how to make it behave as you do for wiring the dependencies yourself. And it is another tech new team members have to learn.
In FP, you can do the same thing by simply defining a function which takes the DB resource as a parameter. You can pass functions around directly instead of having to wrap them in classes implementing interfaces.
// F#
let getRegistrations (db: DbResource) (day: DateTime) =
...
let saveRegistration (db: DbResource) ... =
...
The use case function:
// F#
let register fGet fSave request =
async {
let! registrations = fGet request.Date
// call your business logic here
...
do! fSave ...
}
Then to call it you might do something like this:
register (getRegistrations db) (saveRegistration db) request
The partial application of db here is analogous to constructor injection. Your "losses" from passing it to multiple functions is minimal compared to the savings of not having to define interface + implementation for each DB operation.
Despite being in a functional-first language, the above is in principle the same as the OO/SOLID way... just less lines of code. To go a step further into the functional realm, you have to work on eliminating side effects in your business logic. Side effects can include: current time, random numbers, throwing exceptions, database operations, HTTP API calls, etc.
Since F# does not require you to declare side effects, I designate a border area of code where side effects should stop being used. For me, the use case level (register function above) is the last place for side effects. Any business logic lower than that, I work on pushing side effects up to the use case. It is a learning process to do that, so do not be discouraged if it seems impossible at first. Just do what you have to for now and learn as you go.
I have a post that attempts to set the right expectations on the benefits of FP and how to get them.
I'm going to add a second answer here taking an entirely different approach. I wrote about it here. This is the same approach used by MVU to isolate decisions from side effects, so it is applicable to UI (using Elmish) and backend.
This is worthwhile if you need to interleave important business logic with side effects. But not if you just need to execute a series of side effects. In that case just use a block of imperative statements, in a task (F# 6 or TaskBuilder) or async block if you need IO.
The pattern
Here are the basic parts.
Types
Model - The state of the workflow. Used to "remember" where we are in the workflow so it can be resumed after side effects.
Effect - Declarative representation of the side effects you want to perform and their required data.
Msg - Represents events that have happened. Primarily, they are the results of side effects. They will resume the workflow.
Functions
update - Makes all the decisions. It takes in its previous state (Model) and a Msg and returns an updated state and new Effects. This is a pure function which should have no side effects.
perform - Turns a declared Effect into a real side effect. For example, saving to a database. Returns a Msg with the result of the side effect.
init - Constructs an initial Model and starting Msg. Using this, a caller gets the data it needs to start the workflow without having to understand the internal details of update.
I jotted down an example for a rate-limited emailer. It includes the implementation I use on the backend to package and run this pattern, called Ump.
The logic can be tested without any instrumentation (no mocks/stubs/fakes/etc). Declare the side effects you expect, run the update function, then check that the output matches with simple equality. From the linked gist:
// example test
let expected = [SendEmail email1; ScheduleSend next]
let _, actual = Ump.test ump initArg [DueItems ([email1; email2], now)]
Assert.IsTrue(expected = actual)
The integrations can be tested by exercising perform.
This pattern takes some getting-used-to. It reminds me a bit of an Erlang actor or a state machine. But it is helpful when you really need your business logic to be correct and well-tested. It also happens to be a proper functional pattern.
I have a .NET console application that I want to start on the server of an ASP.NET MVC application. It produces output continuously for a certain time and I want to intercept this output and show it to the client in his browser window.
From another console application, I can do it like this:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Process process = new Process();
process.StartInfo.FileName = "RandomOutputCreator.exe";
process.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false;
process.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true;
process.OutputDataReceived += (sender, e) =>
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Data);
};
process.Start();
process.BeginOutputReadLine();
Console.ReadKey();
}
The problem is that in the MVC application, I can't push the data I read to the client, but rather rely on requests to the controller to get my data.
Something like WebSockets could maybe help me here, but I'm new to this kind of thing and wonder if there might be a "built-in" way to accomplish this.
Then there's the Web API thing. Could this be of use perhaps, since it seems to go well with MVC?
(Since I do not know what a fitting technology might be, please excuse the lack of tags and feel free to fill some in that you think fit).
This topic typically reminds me of a tutorial I followed in order to allow real-time communication from my browser to an ASP.NET application.
In summary : What you're looking for are indeed WebSocket, and there is no standard built-in functions to handle that. But, in order to help you doing some stuff, you still have the library signalR!
Here's the link to the referenced tutorial : http://www.asp.net/signalr/overview/getting-started/real-time-web-applications-with-signalr
You can try "print" console output in a separate frame (see iframe HTML tag).
You should set one of your actions as a source (URL) of the frame. You'll need to configure the IIS to run this action without execution time limit.
Next, your action should run an external program, intercept its output, and write it to HTTP output (see ContentResult).
I have a small project that does exactly that: https://github.com/vtortola/WebSocketListener/wiki/WebSocketListener-Terminal-Server
Give it a look, it may give you some ideas.
I've actually been toying with Meteor for a little bit now, but I realized that I still lack some (or a lot!) comprehension on the topic.
For example, here is a tutorial that uses node.js/express/socket.io to make a simple real-time chat: http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/javascript-ajax/real-time-chat-with-nodejs-socket-io-and-expressjs/
In that above example, through socket.io, the webserver receives some data and passes it onto all of the connected clients -- all without any database accesses.
With Meteor, in all the examples that I've seen, clients are updated by writing to the mongodb, which then updates all the clients. But what if I don't need to write data to the database? It seems like an expensive step to pass data to all clients.
I am sure I am missing something here. What would be the Meteor way of updating all the clients (say, like with a simple chat app), but without needing the expense of writing to a database first?
Thank you!
At the moment there isn't an official way to send data to clients without writing it to a collection. Its a little tricker in meteor because the step to send data to multiple clients when there isn't a place to write to comes from when multiple meteor's are used together. I.e items sent from one meteor won't come to clients subscribed on the other.
There is a temporary solution using Meteor Streams (http://meteorhacks.com/introducing-meteor-streams.html) that can let you do what you want without writing to the database in the meanwhile.
There is also a pretty extensive discussion about this on meteor-talk (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/meteor-talk/Ze9U9lEozzE) if you want to understand some of the technical details. This will actually become possible when the linker branch is merged into master, for a single server
Here's a bit of way to have a 'virtual collection, its not perfect but it can do until Meteor has a more polished way of having it done.
Meteor.publish("virtual_collection", function() {
this.added("virtual_coll", "some_id_of_doc", {key: "value"});
//When done
this.ready()
});
Then subscribe to this on the client:
var Virt_Collection = new Meteor.Collection("virtual_coll");
Meteor.subscribe("virtual_collection");
Then you could run this when the subscription is complete:
Virt_Collection.findOne();
=> { _id: "some_id_of_doc", key: "value"}
This is a bit messy but you could also hook into it to update or remove collections. At least this way though you won't be using any plugins or packages.
See : https://www.eventedmind.com/posts/meteor-how-to-publish-to-a-client-only-collection for more details and a video example.
The publish function on the server sends data to clients. It has some convenient shortcuts to publish query results from the database but you do not have to use these. The publish function has this.added(), this.removed(), and this.changed() that allow you to publish anything you choose. The client then subscribes and receives the published data.
For example:
if ( Meteor.isClient ){
var someMessages = new Meteor.Collection( "messages" ); //messages is name of collection on client side
Meteor.subscribe ( "messagesSub" ); //messagesSub tells the server which publish function to request data from
Deps.autorun( function(){
var message = someMessages.findOne({});
if ( message ) console.log( message.m ); // prints This is not from a database
});
}
if (Meteor.isServer ) {
Meteor.publish( "messagesSub", function(){
var self = this;
self.added ( "messages", "madeUpId1", { m: "This is not from a database"} ); //messages is the collection that will be published to
self.ready();
});
}
There is an example in meteor docs explained here and another example here. I also have an example that shares data between clients without ever using a database just to teach myself how the publish and subscribe works. Nothing used but basic meteor.
It's possible to use Meteor's livedata package (their DDP implementation) without the need of a database on the server. This was demoed by Avital Oliver and below I'll point out the pertinent part.
The magic happens here:
if (Meteor.isServer) {
TransientNotes = new Meteor.Collection("transientNotes", {connection: null});
Meteor.publish("transientNotes", function () {
return TransientNotes.find();
});
}
if (Meteor.isClient) {
TransientNotes = new Meteor.Collection("transientNotes");
Meteor.subscribe("transientNotes");
}
Setting connection: null specifies no connection (see Meteor docs).
Akshat suggested using streams. I'm unable to reply to his comment due to lack of reputation, so I will put this here. The package he links to is no longer actively maintained (see author's tweet). I recommend using the yuukan:streamy (look it up on Atmosphere) package instead or use the underlying SockJS lib used in Meteor itself—you can learn how to do this by going through the Meteor code and look how Meteor.server.Stream_server, and Meteor.connection._stream are used, which is what the Streamy package does.
I tested an implementation of the Streamy chat example and found performance to be negligibly different but this was only on rudimentary tests. Using the first approach you get the benefits of the minimongo implementation (e.g. finding) and Meteor reactivity. Reactivity is possible with Streamy, though is does through things like using ReactiveVar's.
There is a way! At least theoretically The protocol used by Meteor to sync between client and server is called DDP. The spec is here
And although there some examples here and here of people implementing their own DDP clients, I'm afraid haven't seen examples of implementations of DDP servers. But I think the protocol is straightforward and would guess it wouldn't be so hard to implement.