mirror of
				https://github.com/zulip/zulip.git
				synced 2025-11-04 05:53:43 +00:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
		
			246 lines
		
	
	
		
			9.7 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			246 lines
		
	
	
		
			9.7 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
# Backend Django tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
## Overview
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Zulip uses the Django framework for its Python back end.  We
 | 
						|
use the testing framework from
 | 
						|
[django.test](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/topics/testing/)
 | 
						|
to test our code.  We have over a thousand automated tests that verify that
 | 
						|
our backend works as expected.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
All changes to the Zulip backend code should be supported by tests.  We
 | 
						|
enforce our testing culture during code review, and we also use
 | 
						|
coverage tools to measure how well we test our code.  We mostly use
 | 
						|
tests to prevent regressions in our code, but the tests can have
 | 
						|
ancillary benefits such as documenting interfaces and influencing
 | 
						|
the design of our software.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If you have worked on other Django projects that use unit testing, you
 | 
						|
will probably find familiar patterns in Zulip's code.  This document
 | 
						|
describes how to write tests for the Zulip back end, with a particular
 | 
						|
emphasis on areas where we have either wrapped Django's test framework
 | 
						|
or just done things that are kind of unique in Zulip.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
## Running tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Our tests live in `zerver/tests/`. You can run them with
 | 
						|
`./tools/test-backend`. It generally takes about a minute to run
 | 
						|
the entire test suite.  When you are in iterative mode, you
 | 
						|
can run individual tests or individual modules, following the
 | 
						|
dotted.test.name convention below:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    cd /srv/zulip
 | 
						|
    ./tools/test-backend zerver.tests.tests.WorkerTest
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
There are many command line options for running Zulip tests, such
 | 
						|
as a `--verbose` option.  The
 | 
						|
best way to learn the options is to use the online help:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    ./tools/test-backend -h
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We also have ways to instrument our tests for finding code coverage,
 | 
						|
URL coverage, and slow tests.  Use the `-h` option to discover these
 | 
						|
features.  We also have a `--profile` option to facilitate profiling
 | 
						|
tests.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Another thing to note is that our tests generally "fail fast," i.e. they
 | 
						|
stop at the first sign of trouble.  This is generally a good thing for
 | 
						|
iterative development, but you can override this behavior with the
 | 
						|
`--nonfatal-errors` option.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
## How to write tests.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Before you write your first tests of Zulip, it is worthwhile to read
 | 
						|
the rest of this document, and you can also read some of the existing tests
 | 
						|
in `zerver/tests` to get a feel for the patterns we use.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
A good practice is to get a "failing test" before you start to implement
 | 
						|
your feature.  First, it is a useful exercise to understand what needs to happen
 | 
						|
in your tests before you write the code, as it can help drive out simple
 | 
						|
design or help you make incremental progress on a large feature.  Second,
 | 
						|
you want to avoid introducing tests that give false positives.  Ensuring
 | 
						|
that a test fails before you implement the feature ensures that if somebody
 | 
						|
accidentally regresses the feature in the future, the test will catch
 | 
						|
the regression.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Another important files to skim are
 | 
						|
[zerver/lib/test_helpers.py](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/master/zerver/lib/test_helpers.py),
 | 
						|
which contains test helpers.
 | 
						|
[zerver/lib/test_classes.py](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/master/zerver/lib/test_classes.py),
 | 
						|
which contains our `ZulipTestCase` and `WebhookTestCase` classes.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Setting up data for tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
All tests start with the same fixture data.  (The tests themselves
 | 
						|
update the database, but they do so inside a transaction that gets
 | 
						|
rolled back after each of the tests complete. For more details on how the
 | 
						|
fixture data gets set up, refer to `tools/setup/generate-fixtures`.)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The fixture data includes a few users that are named after
 | 
						|
Shakesepeare characters, and they are part of the "zulip.com" realm.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Generally, you will also do some explicit data setup of your own. Here
 | 
						|
are a couple useful methods in ZulipTestCase:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- common_subscribe_to_streams
 | 
						|
- send_message
 | 
						|
- make_stream
 | 
						|
- subscribe_to_stream
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
More typically, you will use methods directly from the backend code.
 | 
						|
(This ensures more end-to-end testing, and avoids false positives from
 | 
						|
tests that might not consider ancillary parts of data setup that could
 | 
						|
influence tests results.)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Here are some example action methods that tests may use for data setup:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- check_send_message
 | 
						|
- do_change_is_admin
 | 
						|
- do_create_user
 | 
						|
- do_make_stream_private
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
## Zulip Testing Philosophy
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If there is one word to describe Zulip's philosophy for writing tests,
 | 
						|
it is probably "flexible."  (Hopefully "thorough" goes without saying.)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
When in doubt, unless speed concerns are prohibitive,
 | 
						|
you usually want your tests to be somewhat end-to-end, particularly
 | 
						|
for testing endpoints.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
These are some of the testing strategies that you will see in the Zulip
 | 
						|
test suite...
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Endpoint tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We strive to test all of our URL endpoints.  The vast majority of Zulip
 | 
						|
endpoints support a JSON interface.  Regardless of the interface, an
 | 
						|
endpoint test generally follows this pattern:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- Set up the data.
 | 
						|
- Login with `self.login()` or set up an API key.
 | 
						|
- Use a Zulip test helper to hit the endpoint.
 | 
						|
- Assert that the result was either a success or failure.
 | 
						|
- Check the data that comes back from the endpoint.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Generally, if you are doing endpoint tests, you will want to create a
 | 
						|
test class that is a subclass of `ZulipTestCase`, which will provide
 | 
						|
you helper methods like the following:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- api_auth
 | 
						|
- assert_json_error
 | 
						|
- assert_json_success
 | 
						|
- client_get
 | 
						|
- client_post
 | 
						|
- get_api_key
 | 
						|
- get_streams
 | 
						|
- login
 | 
						|
- send_message
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Library tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For certain Zulip library functions, especially the ones that are
 | 
						|
not intrinsically tied to Django, we use a classic unit testing
 | 
						|
approach of calling the function and inspecting the results.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For these types of tests, you will often use methods like
 | 
						|
`self.assertEqual()`, `self.assertTrue()`, etc., which come with
 | 
						|
[unittest](https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html#unittest.TestCase)
 | 
						|
via Django.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Fixture-driven tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Particularly for testing Zulip's integrations with third party systems,
 | 
						|
we strive to have a highly data-driven approach to testing.  To give a
 | 
						|
specific example, when we test our GitHub integration, the test code
 | 
						|
reads a bunch of sample inputs from a JSON fixture file, feeds them
 | 
						|
to our GitHub integration code, and then verifies the output against
 | 
						|
expected values from the same JSON fixture file.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Our fixtures live in `zerver/fixtures`.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Mocks and stubs
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We use mocks and stubs for all the typical reasons:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- to more precisely test the target code
 | 
						|
- to stub out calls to third-party services
 | 
						|
- to make it so that you can run your tests on the airplane without wifi
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For mocking we generally use the "mock" library and use `mock.patch` as
 | 
						|
a context manager or decorator.  We also take advantage of some context managers
 | 
						|
from Django as well as our own custom helpers.  Here is an example:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        with self.settings(RATE_LIMITING=True):
 | 
						|
            with mock.patch('zerver.decorator.rate_limit_user') as rate_limit_mock:
 | 
						|
                api_result = my_webhook(request)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        self.assertTrue(rate_limit_mock.called)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Follow [this link](settings.html#testing-non-default-settings) for more
 | 
						|
information on the "settings" context manager.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Template tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
In [zerver/tests/test_templates.py](https://github.com/zulip/zulip/blob/master/zerver/tests/test_templates.py)
 | 
						|
we have a test that renders all of our back end templates with
 | 
						|
a "dummy" context, to make sure the templates don't have obvious
 | 
						|
errors.  (These tests won't catch all types of errors; they are
 | 
						|
just a first line of defense.)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### SQL performance tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
A common class of bug with Django systems is to handle bulk data in
 | 
						|
an inefficient way, where the back end populates objects for join tables
 | 
						|
with a series of individual queries that give O(N) latency.  (The
 | 
						|
remedy is often just to call `select_related()`, but sometimes it
 | 
						|
requires a more subtle restructuring of the code.)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We try to prevent these bugs in our tests by using a context manager
 | 
						|
called `queries_captured()` that captures the SQL queries used by
 | 
						|
the back end during a particular operation.  We make assertions about
 | 
						|
those queries, often simply asserting that the number of queries is
 | 
						|
below some threshold.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Event-based tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Zulip back end has a mechanism where it will fetch initial data
 | 
						|
for a client from the database, and then it will subsequently apply
 | 
						|
some queued up events to that data to the data structure before notifying
 | 
						|
the client.  The `EventsRegisterTest.do_test()` helper helps tests
 | 
						|
verify that the application of those events via apply_events() produces
 | 
						|
the same data structure as performing an action that generates said event.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
This is a bit esoteric, but if you read the tests, you will see some of
 | 
						|
the patterns.  You can also learn more about our event system in the
 | 
						|
[new feature tutorial](new-feature-tutorial.html#handle-database-interactions).
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Negative tests
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
It is important to verify error handling paths for endpoints, particularly
 | 
						|
situations where we need to ensure that we don't return results to clients
 | 
						|
with improper authentication or with limited authorization.  A typical test
 | 
						|
will call the endpoint with either a non-logged in client, an invalid API
 | 
						|
key, or missing input fields.  Then the test will call `assert_json_error()`
 | 
						|
to verify that the endpoint is properly failing.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
## Testing considerations
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Here are some things to consider when writing new tests:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- **Duplication** We try to avoid excessive duplication in tests.
 | 
						|
If you have several tests repeating the same type of test setup,
 | 
						|
consider making a setUp() method or a test helper.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- **Network independence** Our tests should still work if you don't
 | 
						|
have an internet connection.  For third party clients, you can simulate
 | 
						|
their behavior using fixture data.  For third party servers, you can
 | 
						|
typically simulate their behavior using mocks.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
- **Coverage** We have 100% line coverage on several of our backend
 | 
						|
modules.  You can use the `--coverage` option to generate coverage
 | 
						|
reports, and new code should have 100% coverage, which generally requires
 | 
						|
testing not only the "happy path" but also error handling code and
 | 
						|
edge cases.
 |