[keycloak-dev] Testing with mocking libraries?

[Stian Thorgersen]

I think we're in agreement here that the ideal is to do proper integration
tests. Rather than open the doors for mocks (java based or http based) we
should attempt to do it proper. For Google I'm not sure how realistic that
is as the hd param probably requires an corporate account rather than a
freebie account that we are using today for testing. We should investigate
that first though.

On 6 June 2018 at 10:03, Hynek Mlnarik <hmlnarik at redhat.com> wrote:

> To answer the original question whether to mock or not to mock, I wouldn't
> object allowing those in unit tests (which we have not that many though
> until now there's no need to them and I hope we can preserve this state).
> I'd rather not introduce those in integration tests because of maintenance
> costs.
>
> The biggest issue I see with mocks is that one needs to be extra careful to
> return exactly what's expected from the specification/counterparty.
> Since social
> providers  can change without prior notice, our mocked IdPs might give us
> false impression that we're testing them. Furthermore, such mocks would be
> rather complex, and would require non-trivial maintenance. I'm hence biased
> against mock IdPs and prefer the tests with real IdPs as mentioned by
> Marek.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dne 1.6.2018 v 14:48 Bill Burke napsal(a):
> > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:18 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> For IDP, I am not sure how would Mocked IDP help? We already have lots
> > of
> > >> test coverage for Identity brokering for OIDC and SAML. The social
> > providers
> > >> usually implements OAuth/OIDC and there are just small differences
> > between
> > >> them. But those small differences and the fact that social providers
> > are out
> > >> of our control, is exactly the reason why we need to test with real
> > >> providers instead of mocks IMO.
> > >>
> > > IDP mocks are not a replacement for real testing.  Just something that
> > > would run in public CI, that way at least there's something to catch
> > > issues like when/if brokering gets refactored again.
> > AFAIK the longer-term plan is to run social tests on every PR, to catch
> > regressions by testing with real social providers. So maybe it's better
> > to rather wait until we have that rather then introduce mocks now?
> >
> > Also anyone from community should be able to run social tests based on
> > our README. The important is, that someone could run it just for single
> > provider, which he is interested in (EG. Google for this PR) and is not
> > required to create the account+application in all social providers,
> > which we support. But I hope the social tests already support this now.
> >
> > Marek
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> --Hynek
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>