[keycloak-dev] Testing with mocking libraries?

[Anil Saldanha]

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 at redhat.com> 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 at gmail.com>
> 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 at redhat.com>
> 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/
> keycloak/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 at lists.jboss.org
> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> Red Hat
>