Add required tests for go/acl

[beingnoble03]

Description

This PR adds missing tests for go/acl

Related Issue(s)

Fixes part of #14931

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[frouioui]

Merged main so we can run the code coverage workflow on this PR.

[frouioui]

Forced push to re-trigger the code coverage, it did not appear even after an hour.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 227 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (eddb39e) 47.29% compared to head (d3d3343) 47.27%.
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/sharded_routing.go	0.00%	40 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/semantics/early_rewriter.go	86.19%	23 Missing and 10 partials ⚠️
...tgate/planbuilder/operators/aggregation_pushing.go	0.00%	25 Missing ⚠️
...vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/queryprojection.go	0.00%	20 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/expr_tuple_bvar.go	62.50%	14 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/cached_size.go	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
...gate/planbuilder/operators/info_schema_planning.go	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/aggregator.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/operators/route.go	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/evalengine/format.go	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
... and 26 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14943      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.29%   47.27%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1137     1138       +1     
  Lines      238684   238842     +158     
==========================================
+ Hits       112895   112904       +9     
- Misses     117168   117345     +177     
+ Partials     8621     8593      -28     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[frouioui]

Codecov report for this package:

• on main
• on this PR

[frouioui]

The current changes are looking great to me, the coverage on acl.go went from 58.82% to 91.18% thanks a bunch.

There is one if condition that has not been covered in acl.go (shown here in red), it is the log.Fatalf in the RegisterPolicy function.

Moreover, do you think you could add test cases for the other files in this package deny_all_policy.go and read_only_policy.go?

[beingnoble03]

@frouioui I added the test files for other files of the go/acl package.
For log.fatalf check, I've added a test case which runs sub-process to test because log.fatal calls os.Exit which ends the code execution, even the defer functions. But, this doesn't show up in the code coverage.

Moreover, I found that it's not recommended to test code containing log.fatal, here's the stack overflow answer for the same.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/46841524

[frouioui]

@beingnoble03 thank you for the detailed explanation, that makes sense!

[frouioui]

LGTM! Thank you 🥳

[frouioui]

Actually, coming back to this file and go/acl/read_only_policy_test.go. I read @dbussink's comment and I think we should stick to using github.com/stretchr/testify/assert to do the assertions as you did in go/acl/acl_test.go

[beingnoble03]

Done.

[beingnoble03]

@frouioui I've replace the t.Errorf wherever possible in go/acl package. Some of the previously written test cases used t.Errorf so I've replaced those with assert.Equalf.

[mattlord]

Thank you, @beingnoble03 !

[frouioui]

Thanks a bunch!