11:58 a.m.
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(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
--
Guillaume Vincent
Senior Software Engineer