[keycloak-dev] Javascript adapater tests

[Bruno Oliveira]

That's great Guillaume, and I agree with Stan about TypeScript. One
thing to keep in mind is the fact that most of our tests today are
integration tests.

Stan knows more than me about this. But talking about what was done
for the Node.js adapter[1], what we did was to write an app[2] which
was able to "exercise" some parts of the code.

Maybe we can do something similar for the JavaScript adapter? If this
is something which you would like to take a look, I'd suggest to
create an enhancement into Jira. In this way people will be aware that
you're on it.

[1] - https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-nodejs-connect
[2] - https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-nodejs-connect/tree/master/test/fixtures

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:16 PM Guillaume Vincent <gvincent at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Coverage is what matters.
>
> I like to tests features and add regression tests for each bugs.
> Coverage is not a good metric, you can call your function with no
> assertion, you will have 100% code coverage.
> But I think we are agree that every function in the adapter (init(),
> login() refreshToken(), etc) should be tested.
>
> > should be written in TypeScript.
>
> Totally agree, as I said I created the experience in a couple of hours.
> But yes JS adapter should be written in typescript
>
> I see 2 strategies to implement tests and upgrade the JS adapter:
>
>  1/ write a new lib in Typescript near the old one, add some tests for
> every function and test new and old implementation together with automated
> tests.
>  2/ split actual code (each method in a file for example) set up a blunder
> to build the js adapter and then add unit and functional tests one by one
> for every function. Then migrate code to Typescript
>
> I can try a POC on the first one if you want
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:43 PM Stan Silvert <ssilvert at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/16/2019 9:53 AM, Guillaume Vincent wrote:
> > > Hello Keycloak dev list,
> > >
> > > in a previous post I raised the problem that the JavaScript adapter did
> > not
> > > have JavaScript tests.
> > >
> > > In a couple of hours I created a simple example for Keycloak with unit
> > and
> > > functional tests https://github.com/guillaumevincent/keycloak-lite
> > >
> > > You can see tests in this file
> > > https://github.com/guillaumevincent/keycloak-lite/blob/master/test.js
> > >
> > > I also created a blog post on IMO How to test JavaScript code:
> > > https://guillaumevincent.com/2019/01/15/test-in-javascript.html
> > >
> > > Maybe we can open the discussion on how keycloak.js should be tested.
> > > Without any fast and automated tests, in JavaScript, the refactor of the
> > > keycloak adapter will not be easy at all.
> > >
> > > wdyt?
> > Several thoughts:
> >
> >   * Basically, I agree.  It makes sense to test javascript with
> >     javascript.  I like where you are going with this.
> >   * An important point in any discussion of testing is that the only
> >     useful test is a test that uncovers a bug.  We never write tests
> >     just to say we have lots of tests.  Coverage is what matters.  I'm
> >     not criticizing your blog.  It's just something I like to keep in mind.
> >   * You mention TypeScript in your blog, but test.js appears to be
> >     written in plain javascript.  IMO, any javascript we write (with the
> >     possible exception of keycloak.js) should be written in TypeScript.
> >     Both internally and externally, developers are moving more and more
> >     to TypeScript.  Also, the Java developers on our team will be much
> >     more comfortable and confident with a strongly typed language that
> >     works well with an IDE.
> >   * We need to know a little more about the current test coverage of the
> >     javascript adapter.  Much of it is tested through indirect means.
> >   * We need to understand how javascript tests will integrate into our
> >     builds.
> >   * We need to standardize on a javascript test package.  I don't want
> >     the adapter to be tested with one library while the new account
> >     management console is tested with another.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Vincent
> Senior Software Engineer
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev



-- 
- abstractj