-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
wip generic predicates #435
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@metlos Amazing work! 🚀 Tysm for driving this 🏅
Just minor suggestions:
actual := &corev1.ConfigMap{} | ||
actual.SetName("actual") | ||
actual.SetLabels(map[string]string{"k": "v"}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe it's worth doing some aux function for creating the ConfigMap just to avoid duplication (there are two occurrences in these test, and another one in TestNamePredicate. maybe will need it more for the upcoming tests). WDYT?
actual := &corev1.ConfigMap{} | |
actual.SetName("actual") | |
actual.SetLabels(map[string]string{"k": "v"}) | |
actual := newConfigMap("actual", map[string]string{"k": "v"}) |
func TestExplain(t *testing.T) { | ||
t.Run("with diff", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
// given | ||
actual := &corev1.Secret{} | ||
actual.SetName("actual") | ||
|
||
pred := Has(Name("expected")) | ||
|
||
// when | ||
expl := Explain(pred, actual) | ||
|
||
// then | ||
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(expl, "predicate 'test.named' didn't match the object because of the following differences (- indicates the expected values, + the actual values):")) | ||
assert.Contains(t, expl, "-") | ||
assert.Contains(t, expl, "\"expected\"") | ||
assert.Contains(t, expl, "+") | ||
assert.Contains(t, expl, "\"actual\"") | ||
}) | ||
|
||
t.Run("without diff", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
// given | ||
actual := &corev1.Secret{} | ||
actual.SetName("actual") | ||
|
||
pred := Is[client.Object](&predicateWithoutFixing{}) | ||
|
||
// when | ||
expl := Explain(pred, actual) | ||
|
||
// then | ||
assert.Equal(t, "predicate 'test.predicateWithoutFixing' didn't match the object", expl) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
t.Run("with a slice", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
actual := []int{1, 2, 3} | ||
pred := MockPredicate[[]int]{} | ||
pred.MatchesFunc = func(v []int) bool { | ||
return false | ||
} | ||
pred.FixToMatchFunc = func(v []int) []int { | ||
return []int{1, 2} | ||
} | ||
|
||
expl := Explain(Is[[]int](pred), actual) | ||
|
||
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(expl, "predicate 'test.MockPredicate[[]int]' didn't match the object because of the following")) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
t.Run("with conditions", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
actual := []toolchainv1alpha1.Condition{ | ||
{ | ||
Type: toolchainv1alpha1.ConditionType("test"), | ||
Status: corev1.ConditionFalse, | ||
Reason: "because", | ||
}, | ||
} | ||
|
||
pred := ConditionThat(toolchainv1alpha1.ConditionType("test"), HasStatus(corev1.ConditionTrue)) | ||
|
||
expl := Explain(Has(pred), actual) | ||
|
||
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(expl, "predicate 'test.conditionsPredicate' didn't match the object because of the following")) | ||
}) | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To avoid duplication of the test cases and to make the tests easier to read, we can use a table-driven approach, if you agree. Something like this:
func TestExplain(t *testing.T) { | |
t.Run("with diff", func(t *testing.T) { | |
// given | |
actual := &corev1.Secret{} | |
actual.SetName("actual") | |
pred := Has(Name("expected")) | |
// when | |
expl := Explain(pred, actual) | |
// then | |
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(expl, "predicate 'test.named' didn't match the object because of the following differences (- indicates the expected values, + the actual values):")) | |
assert.Contains(t, expl, "-") | |
assert.Contains(t, expl, "\"expected\"") | |
assert.Contains(t, expl, "+") | |
assert.Contains(t, expl, "\"actual\"") | |
}) | |
t.Run("without diff", func(t *testing.T) { | |
// given | |
actual := &corev1.Secret{} | |
actual.SetName("actual") | |
pred := Is[client.Object](&predicateWithoutFixing{}) | |
// when | |
expl := Explain(pred, actual) | |
// then | |
assert.Equal(t, "predicate 'test.predicateWithoutFixing' didn't match the object", expl) | |
}) | |
t.Run("with a slice", func(t *testing.T) { | |
actual := []int{1, 2, 3} | |
pred := MockPredicate[[]int]{} | |
pred.MatchesFunc = func(v []int) bool { | |
return false | |
} | |
pred.FixToMatchFunc = func(v []int) []int { | |
return []int{1, 2} | |
} | |
expl := Explain(Is[[]int](pred), actual) | |
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(expl, "predicate 'test.MockPredicate[[]int]' didn't match the object because of the following")) | |
}) | |
t.Run("with conditions", func(t *testing.T) { | |
actual := []toolchainv1alpha1.Condition{ | |
{ | |
Type: toolchainv1alpha1.ConditionType("test"), | |
Status: corev1.ConditionFalse, | |
Reason: "because", | |
}, | |
} | |
pred := ConditionThat(toolchainv1alpha1.ConditionType("test"), HasStatus(corev1.ConditionTrue)) | |
expl := Explain(Has(pred), actual) | |
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(expl, "predicate 'test.conditionsPredicate' didn't match the object because of the following")) | |
}) | |
} | |
func TestExplain(t *testing.T) { | |
tests := []struct { | |
name string | |
actual any | |
predicate Predicate[any] | |
expectedText string | |
contains []string | |
}{ | |
{ | |
name: "with diff", | |
actual: &corev1.Secret{Name: "actual"}, | |
predicate: Has(Name("expected")), | |
expectedText: "predicate 'test.named' didn't match the object because of the following differences", | |
contains: []string{"-", "\"expected\"", "+", "\"actual\""}, | |
}, | |
{ | |
name: "without diff", | |
actual: &corev1.Secret{Name: "actual"}, | |
predicate: Is[client.Object](&predicateWithoutFixing{}), | |
expectedText: "predicate 'test.predicateWithoutFixing' didn't match the object", | |
contains: nil, | |
}, | |
{ | |
name: "with a slice", | |
actual: []int{1, 2, 3}, | |
predicate: MockPredicate[[]int]{ | |
MatchesFunc: func(v []int) bool { return false }, | |
FixToMatchFunc: func(v []int) []int { | |
return []int{1, 2} | |
}, | |
}, | |
expectedText: "predicate 'test.MockPredicate[[]int]' didn't match the object because of the following", | |
contains: nil, | |
}, | |
{ | |
name: "with conditions", | |
actual: []toolchainv1alpha1.Condition{ | |
{ | |
Type: toolchainv1alpha1.ConditionType("test"), | |
Status: corev1.ConditionFalse, | |
Reason: "because", | |
}, | |
}, | |
predicate: Has(ConditionThat( | |
toolchainv1alpha1.ConditionType("test"), | |
HasStatus(corev1.ConditionTrue), | |
)), | |
expectedText: "predicate 'test.conditionsPredicate' didn't match the object because of the following", | |
contains: nil, | |
}, | |
} | |
for _, tt := range tests { | |
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) { | |
// when | |
expl := Explain(tt.predicate, tt.actual) | |
// then | |
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(expl, tt.expectedText)) | |
if tt.contains != nil { | |
for _, part := range tt.contains { | |
assert.Contains(t, expl, part) | |
} | |
} | |
}) | |
} | |
} |
This a WIP of the proposed changes to unify the test assertions.