[keycloak-dev] Javascript adapater tests

[Stian Thorgersen]

With regards to converting to TypeScript I agree that is the way forward.

With regards to testing I see no value in unit tests for the JavaScript
adapter. The adapter itself provides very little logic and it's mostly
about invoking the Keycloak server. As a rule Keycloak requires
functional/integration tests, while unit tests are optional.

I am open to suggestions on how to write integration tests with JavaScript
frameworks instead of Arquillian. Couple things to point out. It has to be
integration tests using a real Keycloak server and it has to support
browser testing using Sellenium.


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:36, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:

> That's great Guillaume, and I agree with Stan about TypeScript. One
> thing to keep in mind is the fact that most of our tests today are
> integration tests.
>
> Stan knows more than me about this. But talking about what was done
> for the Node.js adapter[1], what we did was to write an app[2] which
> was able to "exercise" some parts of the code.
>
> Maybe we can do something similar for the JavaScript adapter? If this
> is something which you would like to take a look, I'd suggest to
> create an enhancement into Jira. In this way people will be aware that
> you're on it.
>
> [1] - https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-nodejs-connect
> [2] -
> https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-nodejs-connect/tree/master/test/fixtures
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:16 PM Guillaume Vincent <gvincent at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
>
>
> --
> - abstractj
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>