Tests Best Practices

José Antonio Rey jose at ubuntu.com
Tue Apr 14 16:09:13 UTC 2015


I'd like to hear, what are other problems or common things people 
encounter when writing tests?

On 04/14/2015 11:07 AM, Cory Johns wrote:
> As Nate pointed out, I forgot the link.  >_<
>
> [1]: https://docs.python.org/2/library/unittest.html
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Cory Johns <cory.johns at canonical.com> wrote:
>> José,
>>
>> That's a good point that we definitely need recommended best practices
>> for writing charm tests.  I am also behind using the built-in
>> unittest[1] library to organize and structure the tests.   I am also
>> behind encouraging combining tests inside test cases where possible,
>> with the caveat that we frame the recommendation with explicitly
>> calling out the tear-down behavior and explaining why it is
>> recommended to combine test cases, since there will be cases where
>> that is not the best approach because a new environment is required
>> (even though it will be the right thing to do most of the time).
>>
>> I think we should also include a call-out to the template test
>> provided by `charm add tests` (or `charm create`) as the best way to
>> get started, as it also incorporates these practices.  However, we
>> should note about changing the name of the generated test case file
>> away from 99-autogen.
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this up and offering these good suggestions.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:17 PM, José Antonio Rey <jose at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> A couple days ago I was going through the docs, and found out that there are
>>> not best practices or recommendations for tests. Now that we are trying to
>>> ensure quality, I believe it would be a good idea to have them.
>>>
>>> I know that one of the benefits of Juju being so open is that you can write
>>> your charm or tests in any language. However, having these best practices
>>> will allow us to set a recommendation for when people are getting started,
>>> or don't know how to proceed. I understand that this may be seen as a
>>> limitation, but it is instead a guidance for when someone comes to the
>>> ecosystem, or wants to get some tips on how to write tests.
>>>
>>> I was thinking on starting with two points. These are assuming that you are
>>> using Python and Amulet to write your tests. The first one, the use of the
>>> unit_tests packages. As a starter with Python, I have found out the use of
>>> it quite easy, and helps me condensate everything into one big file. Which
>>> takes me to the second point, having everything in one file. This would
>>> allow us to save resources and time (since bundletester tears down for each
>>> file), and would make it look nicer. At least that's how I've been
>>> proceeding for my last tests.
>>>
>>> What do you think? I'm all ears to new suggestions or why these aren't good.
>>>
>>> --
>>> José Antonio Rey
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juju mailing list
>>> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju

-- 
José Antonio Rey



More information about the Juju mailing list