Provide a useful implementation of something compatible with testing.T #571

mrsheepuk · 2023-08-18T09:07:04Z

🤔 What's changed?

Supersedes #570 building on the comment there and providing an implementation of a testing.T-like interface suitable for use with testify's assert and require libraries.

This provides a much cleaner implementation for providing compatibility with libraries like testify's assert and require. The godog-assert example has been updated to show the new cleaner usage.

⚡️ What's your motivation?

Started with trying to give contextual access to the step's testing.T Logf (see #570 for the first attempt at that) but with @tigh-latte 's comment there, I thought it worth expanding it to allow testify's assert and require libraries to work sanely with a testing.T-like interface.

They should work irrespective of whether a testing.T is registered in the test.

🏷️ What kind of change is this?

⚡ New feature (non-breaking change which adds new behaviour)

♻️ Anything particular you want feedback on?

We've been using this internally now for a while and found it to work well, so pretty much, happy for this to go in. Let me know if there's anything more that needs doing on it to get it merged.

📋 Checklist:

I agree to respect and uphold the Cucumber Community Code of Conduct
I've changed the behaviour of the code
- I have added/updated tests to cover my changes.
My change requires a change to the documentation.
- I have updated the documentation accordingly.
Users should know about my change
- I have added an entry to the "Unreleased" section of the CHANGELOG, linking to this pull request.

vearutop · 2023-08-18T12:23:09Z

This is related to #535.

codecov · 2023-08-18T12:26:05Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 27.53623% with 50 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.88%. Comparing base (153db4e) to head (774cad0).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 774cad0 differs from pull request most recent head 939bd89. Consider uploading reports for the commit 939bd89 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
testingt.go	21.42%	32 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
suite.go	37.03%	17 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #571      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.21%   81.88%   -1.33%     
==========================================
  Files          28       29       +1     
  Lines        3413     3478      +65     
==========================================
+ Hits         2840     2848       +8     
- Misses        458      516      +58     
+ Partials      115      114       -1

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

mrsheepuk · 2023-08-18T12:40:49Z

This is related to #535.

Indeed - and #100. I'll sort out the test coverage etc if this looks like a reasonable approach?

vearutop · 2023-08-18T16:52:24Z

I like the idea of

type TestingT interface {
	Log(args ...interface{})
	Logf(format string, args ...interface{})
	Errorf(format string, args ...interface{})
	Fail()
	FailNow()
}

returned from the context.

The full public interface of *testing.T is

type TestingT interface {
	Parallel()
	Setenv(key, value string)
	Run(name string, f func(t *testing.T)) bool
	Deadline() (deadline time.Time, ok bool)
	Name() string
	Fail()
	Failed() bool
	FailNow()
	Log(args ...any)
	Logf(format string, args ...any)
	Error(args ...any)
	Errorf(format string, args ...any)
	Fatal(args ...any)
	Fatalf(format string, args ...any)
	Skip(args ...any)
	Skipf(format string, args ...any)
	SkipNow()
	Skipped() bool
	Helper()
	Cleanup(f func())
	TempDir() string
}

Maybe we should try to provide as much as possible with ours. But I'm still not very clear about the use cases how such instance would be used and what would be behavior expectations.

For example, I can imagine a step definition that would use assert.Equal, e.g.

// iShouldHaveValue is a step definition.
func iShouldHaveValue(ctx context.Context, value string) {
    t := godog.T(ctx) // Getting a TestingT from context.
    assert.Equal(t, "someExpectedValue", value)
}

and then we would need to capture assertion error if any and use it somewhat similar to

// iShouldHaveValue is a step definition.
func iShouldHaveValue(ctx context.Context, value string) error {
    if value != "someExpectedValue" {
          return errors.New("unexpected value")
    }
    return nil
}

Previously, I was thinking we could hack around os.Std* to capture *testing.T messages and turn them into step error.
But now I think a more stable solution could be to actually wrap *testing.T methods to collect errors first hand.

e.g. something like

func (dt *dogTestingT) Errorf(format string, args ...interface{}) {
     df.errors = append(df.errors, fmt.Errorf(format, args...)) // df.errors is later checked by step executor.

This could be implemented even in absense of actual *testing.T, for example in case when godog is running as a standalone CLI.

To accommodate the case when user needs direct access to *testing.T (though I don't have an example why would that be useful) we can extend TestingT interface with an accessor:

  TestingT() *testing.T

that would return value or nil depending on *testing.T availability.

Some methods don't seem to have clear semantics in scope of godog step, for example Run(name string, f func(t *testing.T)) bool or Parallel(), maybe we should exclude them from our interface.

Desired behavior of Log(args ...any) is also not very clear to me, as godog can use different formatters and perhaps some people may want to see those logged messages not as console output, but as a part of the file report.

mrsheepuk · 2023-08-18T17:17:25Z

Hi @vearutop thanks for taking the time to look at this!

Previously, I was thinking we could hack around os.Std* to capture *testing.T messages and turn them into step error.
But now I think a more stable solution could be to actually wrap *testing.T methods to collect errors first hand.

I think you've come to the same conclusion of what I was aiming for here - that's pretty much how this PR works - see this bit of magic here:

https://github.com/cucumber/godog/pull/571/files#diff-8a638a6bfeccc0ce1df4924327f499d69feb7bf391f82a4ba0d22312cfafc4faR112-R116

Combined with this:

https://github.com/cucumber/godog/pull/571/files#diff-a883af0d9a825770682af12c8ccc9bfaef5da1db285bfe066aafb50da3e5f87aR54-R82

With that, you can use it exactly as you suggest - from my (unfortunately currently private) repo where I'm using this fork, I'm doing things like this:

func ItShouldHavePropertyPopulated(ctx context.Context, property string) error {
	bv, err := getProp(ctx, property)
	if err != nil {
		return err
	}

	assert.NotEmpty(godog.GetTestingT(ctx), bv.String())
	return nil
}

func ItShouldHavePropertyOfJSONValue(ctx context.Context, property string, value string) error {
	bv, err := getProp(ctx, property)
	if err != nil {
		return err
	}

	value = ReplaceUnique(ctx, value)

	assert.JSONEq(godog.GetTestingT(ctx), value, bv.String())
	return nil
}

... and the resulting test step is failing / passing as expected when the properties are empty and/or the JSON is matched/mismatched, e.g.:

    And it should have 'status.capacity' of JSON [{"stage":"nonprod", "hasCapacities":true},{"stage":"prod", "hasCapacity":true}] # sharedsteps.go:206 -> github.com/appvia/wayfinder/integration/api.ItShouldHavePropertyOfJSONValue

	Error Trace:	./integration/api/sharedsteps.go:214
	            				/usr/local/Cellar/go/1.20.3/libexec/src/reflect/value.go:586
	            				/usr/local/Cellar/go/1.20.3/libexec/src/reflect/value.go:370
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/internal/models/stepdef.go:182
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/suite.go:220
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/suite.go:485
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/suite.go:539
	Error:      	Not equal:
	            	expected: []interface {}{map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacities":true, "stage":"nonprod"}, map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacity":true, "stage":"prod"}}
	            	actual  : []interface {}{map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacity":true, "stage":"nonprod"}, map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacity":true, "stage":"prod"}}

	            	Diff:
	            	--- Expected
	            	+++ Actual
	            	@@ -2,3 +2,3 @@
	            	  (map[string]interface {}) (len=2) {
	            	-  (string) (len=13) "hasCapacities": (bool) true,
	            	+  (string) (len=11) "hasCapacity": (bool) true,
	            	   (string) (len=5) "stage": (string) (len=7) "nonprod"

then the overall scenario fails with the message too:

--- Failed steps:

  Scenario: Add AWS cluster network plan with reference to assignable networks # features/clusternetworks/cluster-network-plans.feature:18
    And it should have 'status.capacity' of JSON [{"stage":"nonprod", "hasCapacities":true},{"stage":"prod", "hasCapacity":true}] # features/clusternetworks/cluster-network-plans.feature:31
      Error:
	Error Trace:	./integration/api/sharedsteps.go:214
	            				/usr/local/Cellar/go/1.20.3/libexec/src/reflect/value.go:586
	            				/usr/local/Cellar/go/1.20.3/libexec/src/reflect/value.go:370
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/internal/models/stepdef.go:182
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/suite.go:220
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/suite.go:485
	            				./vendor/github.com/cucumber/godog/suite.go:539
	Error:      	Not equal:
	            	expected: []interface {}{map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacities":true, "stage":"nonprod"}, map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacity":true, "stage":"prod"}}
	            	actual  : []interface {}{map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacity":true, "stage":"nonprod"}, map[string]interface {}{"hasCapacity":true, "stage":"prod"}}

	            	Diff:
	            	--- Expected
	            	+++ Actual
	            	@@ -2,3 +2,3 @@
	            	  (map[string]interface {}) (len=2) {
	            	-  (string) (len=13) "hasCapacities": (bool) true,
	            	+  (string) (len=11) "hasCapacity": (bool) true,
	            	   (string) (len=5) "stage": (string) (len=7) "nonprod"

(all the 'Error Trace' stuff is just what testify's assert.* functions output to testing.T, I don't particularly like all that noise in the test output but that's a different problem!)

mrsheepuk · 2023-08-18T17:18:38Z

Desired behavior of Log(args ...any) is also not very clear to me, as godog can use different formatters and perhaps some people may want to see those logged messages not as console output, but as a part of the file report.

This is a very fair point - my use case was just seeing the output on the CI log while these tests were running, but it could/should perhaps be more nuanced. Given that there is no custom logging support at all now, perhaps this could be handled in a separate PR to make the Log functions more nuanced in terms of recording the output?

mrsheepuk · 2023-09-01T15:48:33Z

Just a quick update on this one - we're using it quite effectively ourselves so I'll tidy this up (hopefully early next week) with some tests and examples to make it clearer what the intended usage is then we can go from there 👍

mrsheepuk · 2024-01-10T16:28:48Z

I know I never came back to this one - in the end, we ended up sticking with more idiomatic godog 'return an error' directly instead of using testify's require/asset libraries in our use case, so we're only actually using the Log() part of what's on this PR.

I don't know if this is worth keeping alive - I probably won't have time to add much more to it in the way of tests etc and I'm not certain that it's idiomatically sensible to encourage people down this route any more... it does work, I'm just less-than-convinced it is correct (beyond the log bit, which is useful, but could be skinned a different way).

Any thoughts? If y'all feel it is generally useful, I'll find the time to tidy it up and get it into a mergeable state, but if not, I'm happy to close it unmerged.

b0ch3nski · 2024-04-19T10:55:27Z

@mrsheepuk What needs to be done here to ship this? We are stuck using (not much maintained these days) https://github.com/go-bdd/gobdd instead of Godog just because of missing testing.T 😿

mirogta · 2024-04-19T13:37:22Z

If it helps, I've used a wrapper around testing.T in order to use testify's require/assert. See https://github.com/mirogta/godog-assert and a (stale) discussion here

mrsheepuk · 2024-04-22T08:31:26Z

@b0ch3nski what is here does work, we're using it pretty heavily - but mostly just for the contextual logging in the output, we moved away from using testify as it felt like we were fighting the cucumber/godog idiomatic way of doing things, so we simply embraced that and returned errors.

Regarding getting this merged - I'm not really sure - @vearutop if I add some tests and bring this up to date, are you conceptually happy with this going in?

@mirogta that looks like a nice clean narrow approach from a quick look - might be worth seeing if that could be a cleaner approach to a PR here?

b0ch3nski · 2024-04-22T14:42:02Z

@mrsheepuk I have kind of opposite feeling that reimplementing everything that testify already does just to return errors is fighting against an idiomatic way of doing things 🤔

mrsheepuk · 2024-04-22T15:11:05Z

@mrsheepuk I have kind of opposite feeling that reimplementing everything that testify already does just to return errors is fighting against an idiomatic way of doing things 🤔

Oh, you're not wrong! it's idiomatic go testing vs idiomatic godog usage. For us, the latter ended up being more pragmatic.

… with testing.T

mrsheepuk · 2024-04-23T10:21:30Z

Just an update - I'm going ahead and adding some test coverage over this and tidying it up to implement as much as makes sense of testing.T's public interface, so should have something mergeable shortly.

mrsheepuk · 2024-04-23T10:59:08Z

@b0ch3nski - would you be interested in trying to use this branch to validate if it meets your needs? I've added some tests and tidied up the code a bit.

b0ch3nski

@mrsheepuk Thank you very much for this 🦾 I'd be more than happy to see this merged upstream. One nitpick suggestion added to enforce TestingT interface compatibility but yeah might be too paranoid 😄

testingt.go

Co-authored-by: Piotr Bocheński <[email protected]>

…tx)' to 'T(ctx)'

mrsheepuk · 2024-04-23T16:43:18Z

@b0ch3nski I've updated the godog-assert example and renamed 'GetTestingT(ctx)' to 'T(ctx)'.

@vearutop are you someone who can cast an eye over this from a maintainer perspective? or is there someone better who can review?

vearutop · 2024-04-23T18:50:58Z

hello folks, I will look into this on Friday (once I'm back from vacation 😅)

vearutop · 2024-04-23T18:51:26Z

and thanks for keeping this alive!

mrsheepuk · 2024-04-26T11:13:59Z

hi @vearutop - just a quick update, I improved the test coverage and updated the README and CHANGELOG so I think from my perspective, this is ready to go assuming you're happy.

of course, happy to make any further changes you think needed after reviewing, so let me know what you think 👍

vearutop

Looks great! Thank you for this upgrade.

I've commented a couple of minor things, and then I think this is good to merge. 👍

testingt.go

mrsheepuk · 2024-04-29T08:21:24Z

I've commented a couple of minor things, and then I think this is good to merge. 👍

Thanks for the review @vearutop - updated and ready for another try at CI 🚀

mrsheepuk mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2023

Provide access to the testing.T log function in the context #570

Closed

7 tasks

mrsheepuk force-pushed the provide-t branch from 774cad0 to 374dc14 Compare September 6, 2023 10:28

mrsheepuk force-pushed the provide-t branch from 374dc14 to 1d2f5b4 Compare January 10, 2024 14:29

mrsheepuk added 2 commits April 22, 2024 18:42

Attempting to provide a useful implementation of something compatible…

7eb5eef

… with testing.T

Handle Fail calls on the TestingT in the right place

b0cfbf5

mrsheepuk force-pushed the provide-t branch from 1d2f5b4 to b0cfbf5 Compare April 22, 2024 17:42

Provide as much of testing.T as possible + tidy up

7a8acdd

Add initial tests for testingT support

c51d503

b0ch3nski reviewed Apr 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

testingt.go Show resolved Hide resolved

mrsheepuk changed the title ~~Attempting to provide a useful implementation of something compatible with testing.T~~ Provide a useful implementation of something compatible with testing.T Apr 23, 2024

mrsheepuk and others added 2 commits April 23, 2024 16:55

Check compatibility with testing.T and friends

ce4bc3f

Co-authored-by: Piotr Bocheński <[email protected]>

Update assert-godogs example to show new usage. Rename 'GetTestingT(c…

bd4c69d

…tx)' to 'T(ctx)'

Update changelog and readme with new usage

145f942

mrsheepuk force-pushed the provide-t branch from 61f500d to 8f02b89 Compare April 24, 2024 17:21

Improve test coverage

dbb8426

mrsheepuk force-pushed the provide-t branch from 8f02b89 to dbb8426 Compare April 24, 2024 17:23

vearutop requested changes Apr 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

testingt.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

testingt.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Review updates

939bd89

vearutop approved these changes Apr 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

vearutop merged commit 7017c73 into cucumber:main Apr 29, 2024
6 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Provide a useful implementation of something compatible with testing.T #571

Provide a useful implementation of something compatible with testing.T #571

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

vearutop commented Aug 18, 2023

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023

vearutop commented Aug 18, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Sep 1, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Jan 10, 2024

b0ch3nski commented Apr 19, 2024

mirogta commented Apr 19, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 22, 2024

b0ch3nski commented Apr 22, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 22, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 23, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 23, 2024

b0ch3nski left a comment

mrsheepuk commented Apr 23, 2024

vearutop commented Apr 23, 2024

vearutop commented Apr 23, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 26, 2024

vearutop left a comment

mrsheepuk commented Apr 29, 2024

Provide a useful implementation of something compatible with testing.T #571

Provide a useful implementation of something compatible with testing.T #571

Conversation

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023 • edited Loading

🤔 What's changed?

⚡️ What's your motivation?

🏷️ What kind of change is this?

♻️ Anything particular you want feedback on?

📋 Checklist:

vearutop commented Aug 18, 2023

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023

vearutop commented Aug 18, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Sep 1, 2023

mrsheepuk commented Jan 10, 2024

b0ch3nski commented Apr 19, 2024

mirogta commented Apr 19, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 22, 2024

b0ch3nski commented Apr 22, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 22, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 23, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 23, 2024

b0ch3nski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mrsheepuk commented Apr 23, 2024

vearutop commented Apr 23, 2024

vearutop commented Apr 23, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Apr 26, 2024

vearutop left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mrsheepuk commented Apr 29, 2024

mrsheepuk commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading