[aerogear-dev] iOS testing - HTTP mocking

[Christos Vasilakis]

Hi

have updated the PR, a wrong static set delay on the singleton method increased the execution time of the tests.. :(

Thanks!

On Jun 11, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:

> Did the check ->   
> Executed 157 tests, with 0 failures (0 unexpected) in 14.247 (14.286) seconds
> 
> that is _ok_, so .... perhaps it's not that smart, to use proposal #2 ? 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
> Looking at the branch:
> 
> One thing that I noticed is the extreme larger amount of, for passing the tests.
> 
> Branch_of_PR:
> Executed 156 tests, with 0 failures (0 unexpected) in 52.261 (52.285) seconds
> 
> Master_branch (aerogear/aerogear-ios):
> Executed 157 tests, with 0 failures (0 unexpected) in 12.194 (12.217) seconds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am wondering, that that OHHTTPStub is really _that_ slow...
> Do you have an numbers from the proposal #1 ?
> 
> -Matthias
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Christos Vasilakis <cvasilak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> looks like #2 approach wins so I merged it.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> +1 for #2. Indeed second approach2 is more objective-c in the syntax.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10 June 2013 10:15, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think I do prefer the approach #2 (the "mock helper" class)
>> 
>> -M
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Christos Vasilakis <cvasilak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi team,
>> 
>> for further improvements of our unit tests we have switched the http mocking mechanism we use (our own NSURLProtocol impl)  to the popular OHHTTPStubs[1] project,  a library currently recommended by the AFNetworking networking lib we use.
>> 
>> The basic mechanism is straightforward to use and encapsulated in one method:
>> 
>> return [OHHTTPStubsResponse responseWithData:data
>>                                   statusCode:status
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                                 responseTime:responseTime
>>                                      headers:headers];
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> in which a stubbed response is returned to the client.
>> 
>> Now, based on this mechanism,  we have abstracted a bit and created methods such as:
>> 
>>  + (void)mockResponse:(NSData*)data;
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  + (void)mockResponseStatus:(int)status;
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  + (void)mockResponseTimeout:(NSData*)data status:(int)status responseTime:(NSTimeInterval)responseTime;
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This gives the advantages that a) clearly indicate what http scenario we are testing  and b) remove params that don't make sense for the particular scenario under testing e.g. that is we simulate a status of  (404) but we need to pass all params eg. data, interval, timeout, etc.  But this doesn't limit us, we can do that if we want and use the full blown method with all the params attached.
>> 
>> I have created two branches in my fork, one that uses a blocks approach inside the testing class [2] and one that the functionality is extracted in a helper class that the testing classes can use [3].  The second approach was created because there was common code and didn't want to duplicate it over the testing classes.  
>> 
>> I would be interesting to know what is your comments on it?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Christos
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://github.com/AliSoftware/OHHTTPStubs
>> [2] https://github.com/cvasilak/aerogear-ios/blob/ohhttpstubs/AeroGear-iOS/AeroGear-iOSTests/AGRestAdapterTests.m#L33-L51
>> [3] https://github.com/cvasilak/aerogear-ios/blob/ohhttpstubs.helper/AeroGear-iOS/AeroGear-iOSTests/utils/AGHTTPMockHelper.m
>> [4] 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matthias Wessendorf 
>> 
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthias Wessendorf 
> 
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthias Wessendorf 
> 
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130611/eecec8a8/attachment.html