📖 Improve testing guidelines #6112
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
|
||
| Instead, mocking is much more relevant for infrastructure providers; in order to address the issue | ||
| some providers can use simulators reproducing the behaviour of a real infrastructure providers (e.g CAPV); | ||
| if this is not possible, a viable solution is to use mocks (e.g CAPA). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we post a link to an example of where mocks are used?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal of this paragraph is to create awareness on the topic and give a pointer to where this is implemented outside of the CAPI repo, but I'm personally -1 to add a link to unit test code in another repository given that this will be brittle.
docs/book/src/developer/testing.md
Outdated
| While testing core Cluster API contributors should ensure that the code works with any providers, and thus it is required | ||
| to not use any specific provider implementation. Instead, the so-called generic providers should be used because they | ||
| implement the plain Cluster API contract, thus preventing developers to make assumptions we cannot rely on. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| While testing core Cluster API contributors should ensure that the code works with any providers, and thus it is required | |
| to not use any specific provider implementation. Instead, the so-called generic providers should be used because they | |
| implement the plain Cluster API contract, thus preventing developers to make assumptions we cannot rely on. | |
| When writing tests core Cluster API contributors should ensure that the code works with any providers, and thus it is required | |
| to not use any specific provider implementation. Instead, the so-called generic providers e.g. "GenericInfrastructureCluster" should be used because they | |
| implement the plain Cluster API contract. This prevents tests from relying on assumptions that may not hold true in all cases. |
Possibly add a link to the generic providers in the code? Or at least the name of the type so they can be searched.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if you have in mind an example that can be used as a reference happy to add it; personally I'm a little bit concerned about adding a link because what we have is really fragmented. Even if not ideal, I prefer contributors to ask for guidance on this point so we can weigh the pros and cons case by case; also, using the v1.1 timeframe as a benchmark, changes of this type are not really frequent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is fine, given that a link might be more confusing. Adding the name of the example type, i.e. GenericInfrastructureCluster, lets people search for it themselves in the codebase to see the implementation
fabriziopandini
changed the title
|
Thanks for updating the testing guidelines and including discussion about mocking and testing in layers. |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: vincepri The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
Thx! |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Improving the current testing guidelines to better reflect how we act + keeping track of some considerations around testing that popped up during v1.1 work