feat: generate mocks for all responses

[huwshimi]

Status

READY

Description

Generate mocks for all responses defined in an openapi spec.

Fixes: #1280.

Todos

• Tests
• Documentation
• Changelog Entry (unreleased)

Steps to Test or Reproduce

1. cd to samples/react-query/status-codes
2. Run yarn generate-api.
3. Open samples/react-query/status-codes/src/api/endpoints/petstoreFromFileSpecWithTransformer.msw.ts
4. See that mocks and http handlers are generated for each response.
5. At the bottom see that only getListPetsMockHandler() is included in the array of handlers (this is so that when passing the handlers to the worker there is only one http response for each path).

[huwshimi]

I wasn't sure if I should commit this sample with multiple responses defined.

[melloware]

Well I think adding samples/tests is always a good idea. Just my two cents.

[soartec-lab]

I think a sample project is unnecessary. As I commented elsewhere, I want to control this response as an option, and by default I think it is sufficient to output only the minimum success status, so it is sufficient to check it in the test rather than in the sample project.

[huwshimi]

I've removed the sample project and added a config test.

[soartec-lab]

I'll check it in order 👍

[soartec-lab]

@huwshimi
Hi, this PR is nice idea.
I thought it was overkill if we only want to get a simple mock.
For example, is it okay to output all statuses only when true is specified with an option like generateEachHttpStatus: boolean ?

[huwshimi]

@huwshimi Hi, this PR is nice idea. I thought it was overkill if we only want to get a simple mock. For example, is it okay to output all statuses only when true is specified with an option like generateEachHttpStatus: boolean ?

Making it optional sounds like a good idea. I've modified this to add that config option.

[soartec-lab]

Thaks! I made a comment, please check it.

[soartec-lab]

Is this existence check unnecessary?

[huwshimi]

.mock can be an object or a function, this is probably more readable if it uses isObject(generatorOptions.mock) so I'll change it to that.

[soartec-lab]

This is a refactoring consultation.
Is it possible to increase the generated http status with options and then loop the generation targets as shown below?

const isGenerateEachHttpStatus = generatorOptions.mock && 'generateEachHttpStatus' in generatorOptions.mock && generatorOptions.mock.generateEachHttpStatus;
generateStatuses = isGenerateEachHttpStatus ? [...response.types.success, ...response.types.errors] : [response.types.success]

generateStatuses.forEach(
  (statusResponse) => {}
)

With the current implementation, duplicate handlers and mock definition for success will be created.

[huwshimi]

There's a difference between the "base" and other success responses as I didn't want to introduce a breaking change. The "base" response behaves like the response generated before my change, which picks a random success response each time e.g.

export const getListPetsResponseMock = (
  overrideResponse: any = {},
): Okay | Accepted | Success =>
  faker.helpers.arrayElement([ // pick a random "success" response
    Array.from( // the "Okay" type (an array of pets)
      { length: faker.number.int({ min: 1, max: 10 }) },
      (_, i) => i + 1,
    ).map(() =>
      faker.helpers.arrayElement([
        {
          breed: faker.helpers.arrayElement(['Labradoodle'] as const),
         ...
        },
        ...
      ]),
    ),
    { // The "Accepted" response
      code: faker.number.int({ min: undefined, max: undefined }),
      message: faker.word.sample(),
      ...overrideResponse,
    },
    { // The "Success" response
      code: faker.number.int({ min: undefined, max: undefined }),
      message: faker.word.sample(),
      ...overrideResponse,
    },
  ]);

Whereas the other mocks that are generated only return the specific response for a status:

export const getListPetsResponseMock200 = (overrideResponse: any = {}): Okay =>
  Array.from(
    { length: faker.number.int({ min: 1, max: 10 }) },
    (_, i) => i + 1,
  ).map(() =>
    faker.helpers.arrayElement([
      {
        breed: faker.helpers.arrayElement(['Labradoodle'] as const),
        ...
      },
      ...
    ]),
  );

export const getListPetsResponseMock202 = (
  overrideResponse: any = {},
): Accepted => ({
  code: faker.number.int({ min: undefined, max: undefined }),
  message: faker.word.sample(),
  ...overrideResponse,
});

export const getListPetsResponseMock2xx = (
  overrideResponse: any = {},
): Success => ({
  code: faker.number.int({ min: undefined, max: undefined }),
  message: faker.word.sample(),
  ...overrideResponse,
});

I could change it to return a single success response for the "base" response if you would be happy with a breaking change, though it could be difficult to know which response to return (I guess it could be the lowest 2xx number defined in the responses).

[soartec-lab]

@huwshimi

that's sounds good. I had missed this.
In other words, does this mean that when multiple success responses are defined, the mocked types are different, so it is not a duplicate, right?

[huwshimi]

@huwshimi

that's sounds good. I had missed this. In other words, does this mean that when multiple success responses are defined, the mocked types are different, so it is not a duplicate, right?

That's correct.

[soartec-lab]

@huwshimi
Thank you for great job !