Re: [keycloak-dev] Testing with mocking libraries?

I am sorry I have not looked at your integration tests. So I may be wrong here. <namaste/> One area that I feel that you need lots of integration tests is in the "Identity Brokering" feature. You have way too many permutations and combinations (with authentication flows) that without proper integration tests/mocks, you will not do proper justice to the value of KC/RH-SSO. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Never liked mocks either as they are just opinionated warped > perceptions of reality. But there are cases where I think we need > them off the top of my head: > > * Openshift integration > * Social logins. > > Openshift we just won't have the infrastructure for it. Social login > tests require accounts which we won't want to share the logins for in > a public CI. We need something in public CI so that we can catch at > least some potential problems and that we can easily try to reproduce > in local IDE environments. Mocks wouldn't be a replacement for real > integration testing, just a stop gap. > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Anil Saldanha <asaldanha1947(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > You really have to test your core logic (with no server set up) using > > integration tests with mocking libraries. One way to test out all the > > possible preconditions to your logic. > > > > You will be doing a service to your customers and users by shielding > them > > from those nasty exceptions (NPEs) that happen in an integration > platform > > such as KeyCloak/RH-SSO. :-) > > > > /me wearing a user/customer hat > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > > >> Not sure. I am not strongly against it, but I afraid that if we > >> introduce some mocks support, people (especially from community) will > >> start to test with mocks everywhere and add them to all PRs (even to > >> those which could be easily tested properly). Not sure if it's better > >> alternative to skip automated test at all instead of test with mocks? > >> > >> But for this one, I guess we can likely extend our social test with an > >> account from hosted domain and hence test it properly? > >> > >> Marek > >> > >> > >> On 30/05/18 09:19, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > >> > At the moment our testing strategy is only with functional or > integration > >> > level tests. Both with the full server up and running and primarily > >> testing > >> > through public APIs. > >> > > >> > Now here comes the question should we also allow testing through a > >> mocking > >> > library like Mockito? > >> > > >> > In general I'm against mocking libraries. At best you end up with > >> something > >> > that may work, but you're not guaranteed that it actually works. They > >> also > >> > have a very big maintenance cost when any changes are made to the > >> codebase. > >> > > >> > However, take a look at https://github.com/keycloak/ke > ycloak/pull/5215 > >> for > >> > example. It is a contribution to add support for the hd param to the > >> Google > >> > login. Not sure how else we could test this without a mocking > library. > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > keycloak-dev mailing list > > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > > > > -- > Bill Burke > Red Hat >