Skip to content
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

Stub out LMS during MFE development #168

Open
7 tasks
jmbowman opened this issue Jun 12, 2023 · 2 comments
Open
7 tasks

Stub out LMS during MFE development #168

jmbowman opened this issue Jun 12, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@jmbowman
Copy link

jmbowman commented Jun 12, 2023

MFEs allow for simple, light-weight development environments with one glaring exception - the need to launch devstack or Tutor to interact with back end services, especially the LMS for authentication. This drags multiple Python services, databases, a search engine, etc. into the required development environment. We're making progress on supporting cloud-hosted dev environments that avoid the need to install all this on a laptop, but even better would be not to need them at all.

We'd like to start by replacing the LMS with a stub server that returns canned responses to the most common requests made to it by MFEs. Rather than building out a service from scratch which would leave us holding the bulk of the development and maintenance burden, we should use an existing stub server. The leading candidate is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server from the Pact contract testing framework, for the following reasons:

  • We have already started using Pact, and believe broader usage could help reduce the number of production incidents involving broken communications between services.
  • It is implemented in Rust for performance, and is distributed as a single binary.
  • The associated Pact specification already has robust support for many kinds of stubbing needs, including the ability to change the state of the mocked service and alter the responses accordingly.
  • It is an actively maintained component of a larger project with commercial backing, which is unlikely to be suddenly abandoned without a solid migration plan.

Here is more information about Pact in the context of Open edX.

The anticipated parts of this project are roughly:

Tasks

Preview Give feedback

An unmerged hackathon project from a few months ago attempted a different approach to creating a mock authentication service, that code may be useful at least for identifying some of the request/response sequences that need to be stubbed out. It also has the beginnings of Pact testing for it.

@jmbowman jmbowman moved this to Prioritized in Arch-BOM Jun 20, 2023
@jmbowman jmbowman moved this from Prioritized to In Progress in Arch-BOM Jun 27, 2023
@robrap robrap moved this from In Progress to Blocked in Arch-BOM Aug 31, 2023
@robrap
Copy link

robrap commented Aug 31, 2023

@jmbowman: I removed @swayamrana as the assignee and marked this as "No Status" so we can re-prioritize. I'm not sure if you said this might go to fed-bom?

@robrap robrap removed the status in Arch-BOM Aug 31, 2023
@jmbowman jmbowman added this to FED-BOM Sep 1, 2023
@jmbowman jmbowman moved this to Todo in FED-BOM Sep 1, 2023
@jmbowman jmbowman removed this from Arch-BOM Sep 1, 2023
@arbrandes arbrandes moved this to Backlog in Frontend Working Group Oct 6, 2023
@Syed-Ali-Abbas-Zaidi Syed-Ali-Abbas-Zaidi moved this from Todo to In Progress in FED-BOM Oct 19, 2023
@Syed-Ali-Abbas-Zaidi
Copy link

Identify the communications with the LMS that need to be stubbed out

Each MFE relies on the cookie edx-jwt-cookie-header-payload; this cookie contains the JWT token needed for authentication purposes. The frontend code responsible for authentication is housed in frontend-platform so that it can be utilized by each MFE. This serves as the initial step for each MFE. For example, if this cookie is not set, the MFE will redirect the user to the backend, i.e., edx-platform. Therefore, the first step is to stub out this authentication-related communication between the MFE and LMS.

How we achieved the above mentioned scenario ☝️

What we did first was generate a JWT token with no expiry (we tweaked the functionality related to expiry on the backend). This JWT token was created for the admin user [email protected]. We stored this JWT token in the constants of frontend-platform. After that, we created an environment variable named PACT_STUB_ENABLED in our MFE. If this environment variable is set to true, frontend-platform will not search for the cookie in the browser; instead, it will retrieve the cookie from constants and communicate to our MFE that the user is authenticated and the MFE is ready to load.

Figure out the best way to define the mock responses for these requests. This may be writing the Pact file by hand, or it may be creating some Pact tests between the services which will generate this file accordingly.

The best and much easier way is to simply create the mocked responses file by hand.

Generate the necessary Pact file

We created this Pact file for the Profile MFE as it is one of the simpler MFEs of edx. It has only a single route, /u/<user-name>, which calls a couple of GET APIs to fetch some information related to the user, such as Preferred Languages, Earned Certificates, etc. We mocked all these APIs in our Pact file, and finally, the frontend of the MFE started rendering (without devstack - yayyyyy! 🎉 ).

Our Questions/Concerns:

  1. Does this work improve local development? Yes, we know that it removes devstack from the dependency, but it adds one more dependency. Now, if a developer wants to introduce a new feature, they have to mock that API manually.
  2. What about POST APIs? Where do we store data? If we mock POST api in pact file then it will not reflect the data entered by the user. (We did RnD on using SQL or some other database to store/receive data. But Pact Stub Server only allows .json file for its interactions)

cc: @jmbowman

@Syed-Ali-Abbas-Zaidi Syed-Ali-Abbas-Zaidi moved this from In Progress to Author Team Review in FED-BOM Dec 4, 2023
@Syed-Ali-Abbas-Zaidi Syed-Ali-Abbas-Zaidi moved this from Author Team Review to Owner Review in FED-BOM Dec 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants