Re: [keycloak-dev] Microservice-oriented Integration Testing

In general it's a good idea and it can probably be done in stages rather than as one big task. Could be something like: 1. Run browser on a separate node. This could allow testing multiple browsers concurrently with the same Keycloak server. Perhaps we could create separate realms for each browser in order to allow them to run concurrently. 2. Adapter tests. These should just provision a Keycloak server somehow in a similar fashion to how we consume a DB from the server tests as we are testing the adapter not the server here. Running two side-by-side in Arquillian doesn't make all that much sense. 3. Allow tests to run separately to server. This will be required to allow using the testsuite on Keycloak running on Docker or OpenShift. On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 20:47, Tomas Kyjovsky <tkyjovsk(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > I have some ideas about a possible future direction of the testsuite. I > wanted to kick off a discussion around this topic and see what others think. > > In context of the microservice paradigm our current approach to > integration testing seems a bit monolithic. > We run the whole testsuite on a single "all-in-one" host, while a typical > SSO use case always involves interaction of at least 3 separate entities > spread across different hosts, talking to each other via network. > > 1) SSO server > + server-side integrations: JPA/cache server, LDAP server, external IDP, > etc. > + possible clustering/scaling/failover/upgrade scenarios > 2) SSO client (secured service) > + multiple different services, different runtimes > + possibly clustered > 3) SSO user (delegated by user agent / browser) > > The all-in-one approach still works, and it's perhaps better for local > development-testing loop, but it's just a bit weird in proper integration > testing that for example browser (in UI compatibility tests) runs on the > same machine with the server and all the other services. I've been > wondering if it's worth pushing for a more microservice-oriented approach > with proper service decomposition. > > More detailed service decomposition here, feel free to add comments on it: > [1]. > > Advatanges: > - more realistic setup > - issues which don't appear when testing on a single host can be discovered > - different setups on server / client / user side can be provisioned and > combined independently > - the test machine itself could be reduced to git + one JDK + Maven + > cloud client tools (e.g. docker, novaclient, etc.) > - ... anything else? > > Disadvantages: > - additional work, unclear how much > - increased complexity, a different set of challenges related to > provisioning (but with local docker not that much) > - needs preparation/configuration of VM images for all tested services > - not sure right now how we would handle some corner cases like service > restarts/reconfigs which are needed for some tests > - some tests might have to be rewritten/adapted to the non-localhost > environment > - ... anything else? > > Options: > - docker / podman > - openshift / kubernetes > - openstack, aws or similar cloud > - a combination of the above? > > In general the process would look like this: build project --> build > distro zips --> build VM images --> run tests while the testsuite itself > would be able to provision and teardown the tested system (or its > individual components) from the pre-built images. We already use something > like this in the performance testsuite (docker + docker compose). Maybe it > could be generalized to the whole testsuite. > > Since the integration testsuite already uses Arquillian I think that the > Arquillian Cube extension [2] would be an obvious candidate because it > supports both Docker (incl. the Compose orchestration format) and > Kubernetes/Openshift cluster (need to investigate extent of support). While > also keeping the default JVM-embedded test mode for development. > > For additional separation, we could also start using the remote Webdriver > mode instead being tied to the browser installed locally on the test > machine. Arquillian is able send commands to a remote Selenium Grid [3] > which has a bunch of independent browser nodes and relay the commands. The > grid is provisioned separately, and there is already some automation for it > in docker [4]. (I already did a quick test a while ago. There were some > minor issues but with some effort I think it could work.) > > Some ideas to think about. Let me know what you think, or if you have > some other ideas/solutions related to this topic. > > > Tomas > > [1] > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PbsSfU8R6CEz4yYCm6Mld1pMNXxeb19JE... > [2] http://arquillian.org/arquillian-cube/ > [3] https://www.seleniumhq.org/docs/07_selenium_grid.jsp > [4] https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/docker-selenium > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing list > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > _______________________________________________ keycloak-dev mailing list keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev