Ben, you might want to take note of this PR https://github.com/apache/ incubator-openwhisk/pull/3840 which removes a number of tests suites (redundant with unit tests). Also I've found that the WskRestOperations implementation in some places fixes behaviors to match the CLI instead of strictly implementing the narrower/strict REST interface. This may mean you have to edit tests (or remove some that are only valid for clients).
-r On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Ben Browning <bbrow...@redhat.com> wrote: > After several failed attempts, I have an approach that I believe will > work well enough for our needs. I pushed some in-progress code and > swagger spec fixes to a branch on a fork just so the general approach > can be shared - > https://github.com/projectodd/incubator-openwhisk/commit/5ad > b6be27188dcdc5b9519b57c11802a431b3e9c > > This approach uses the swagger-request-validator Java library. I'm > wiring that up to validate all requests and responses from the > WskRest* tests transparently, which you can see in > https://github.com/projectodd/incubator-openwhisk/commit/5ad > b6be27188dcdc5b9519b57c11802a431b3e9c#diff-5e514c6c3c27b9210 > d85a08d4ed3ed35 > (with some cruft and debug output that I'll clean up before submitting > a PR) > > This means that almost all of those tests are now failing due to > failed swagger spec validations. For now I'm going to concentrate on > making the spec match the reality and try to get all the existing > tests green with the validation in place and submit a PR. After that, > we can patch up any known but uncaught holes by increasing the test > coverage. > > Ben > > > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks Ben for the quick update on this task > > > > -cs > > > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:15 PM Ben Browning <bbrow...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > >> After doing some preliminary poking at this, I believe we'll want to > >> use either a tool like https://github.com/google/oatts to generate a > >> test suite from our Swagger spec OR use swagger-codegen to generate a > >> Scala client from our Swagger spec and try to plug that into the > >> existing WskRest tests. > >> > >> Using the oatts tool doesn't really fit well with the test setup in > >> the existing incubator-openwhisk repo (where the API spec lives) > >> because that generates Node.js tests. > >> > >> So, I'm leaning towards the second option, which is wiring in > >> generation of a Scala client into the gradle build and having the > >> current WskRest test client use this generated Scala client for > >> testing instead of directly invoking URLs. > >> > >> However, last time I played with Scala code generated from Swagger > >> specs it wasn't that usable. So, a bit more experimentation will > >> validate whether this option is viable or if other alternatives need > >> to be considered. I already have a handful of bugs in the API spec > >> that need to be fixed but I'm waiting to fix and push those until I > >> can get some kind of testing wired up to reproduce the bugs and verify > >> the fix. > >> > >> Ben > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Thanks Ben for looking into this, having a good API doc/spec and > matching > >> > tests is very need it. > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > -cs > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:25 PM Ben Browning <bbrow...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Our Swagger spec > >> >> ( > >> >> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/blob/92a64c291 > 156a2cd3d6b304babc2a193a46d0699/core/controller/src/main/ > resources/apiv1swagger.json > >> >> ) > >> >> is incomplete and doesn't accurately reflect the actual Controller > >> >> API. It's manually updated without a full test suite which means it's > >> >> easy for changes in the API to happen without the spec getting > >> >> updated. > >> >> > >> >> An accurate Swagger spec will not only better document the OpenWhisk > >> >> API but also allow autogenerated clients in multiple languages to > >> >> supplement or eventually replace some of the existing client > >> >> implementations we have today. It also paves way for future > compatible > >> >> server implementations, whether they be rewrites of the existing > >> >> Controller or stub test harnesses to facilitate end-to-end testing on > >> >> a developer's laptop. > >> >> > >> >> As I'm already working with autogenerating code from the Swagger spec > >> >> for other purposes, I'm happy to take the lead on this effort. I'd > >> >> like to take a two-pronged approach for a test suite: > >> >> > >> >> * Generate a server stub from the spec and ensure the wsk CLI can > >> >> communicate with it. > >> >> > >> >> * Generate a client stub from the spec and ensure it can communicate > >> >> with the existing API. > >> >> > >> >> There are a lot of details to figure out from those two statements. > >> >> And, this approach won't guarantee 100% correctness of the spec. The > >> >> only way to do that would be to generate all supported clients and > the > >> >> Controller API from the spec. But, this should get us started in the > >> >> right direction. > >> >> > >> >> If anyone's gone down this path before and has some wisdom to share, > >> >> please speak up! > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> >> Ben > >> >> > >> >
