[keycloak-dev] Javascript adapater tests

[Guillaume Vincent]

> 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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev



-- 
Guillaume Vincent
Senior Software Engineer