Improve the foundation for testing hosting services.

Review Request #9781 — Created March 15, 2018 and submitted

Information

Review Board
release-3.0.x
7c8e7de...

Reviewers

Hosting service test code is a bit of a mess, due to the need for
overriding HTTP request handling for most tests and setting up
account/service state. Over time, as code was copy/pasted between test
suites to form new tests, this just became more complicated and harder
to manage.

This change introduces a new infrastructure for writing hosting service
tests. Modern test cases now subclass
reviewboard.hostingsvcs.testing.HostingServiceTestCase, which, unlike
the old ServiceTests, is meant to be publicly-used. It provides
several public functions for common types of checks needed, some of
which were previously private functions in ServiceTests, and some of
which are new and will help slim down most tests.

There's a set of new attributes for specifying defaults for hosting
account data, repository extra_data, authentication credentials, and
more, which reduce the need to hard-code the same bits of data
everywhere.

It also introduces the new setup_http_test context manager, which does
all the work of setting up state and spies for any tests that need to
fake results from HTTP requests. This provides a couple of ways of
working. It allows for an explicit payload to be provided, or a status
code for an error response, or a function to invoke when the HTTP
request is made. The context manager yields a HttpTestContext object,
which has some pre-calculated state and helpers for creating
repositories for the test and asserting the results of the HTTP calls.

It also makes the useful HostingService.get_field public, which can
now be used in tests without being re-implemented.

No tests have been updated to make use of this yet. That will come in
future changes.

Existing unit tests pass.

Tested with some upcoming changes that will make use of the new test
case class.

Built the docs and made sure things rendered mostly fine (along with
some changes in beanbag-docutils that will go in later).

Description From Last Updated

Missing a period.

daviddavid

E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters)

reviewbotreviewbot

Instead of using form twice, can we have form_class and form?

daviddavid

This could just be: account.data = data or self.default_account_data

daviddavid
Checks run (1 failed, 1 succeeded)
flake8 failed.
JSHint passed.

flake8

david
  1. 
      
  2. Show all issues

    Missing a period.

  3. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/testing/testcases.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    Instead of using form twice, can we have form_class and form?

    1. Yep. Old copy/pasted code. Thanks for catching that.

  4. reviewboard/hostingsvcs/testing/testcases.py (Diff revision 1)
     
     
     
     
     
    Show all issues

    This could just be:

    account.data = data or self.default_account_data
    
    1. This needs to allow {} to be specified without falling back on default_account_data. That's important for the authorize tests, where you don't want to start with any data.

  5. 
      
chipx86
david
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
chipx86
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Pushed to release-3.0.x (140b712)
Loading...