Not using lifecycle aware observer for unit tests #235

kojadin · 2019-04-24T13:33:08Z

Using MvRxTestRule to force not using life cycle aware observable for unit tests.
Fixes #198

tasomaniac · 2019-04-24T15:30:37Z

mvrx/src/main/kotlin/com/airbnb/mvrx/BaseMvRxViewModel.kt

-                if (deliveryMode is UniqueOnly) {
-                    activeSubscriptions.remove(deliveryMode.subscriptionId)
+    private fun <T : Any> Observable<T>.resolveSubscription(
+        subscriber: (T) -> Unit,


Small comment: I would keep the order of these params consistent with the above functions.

Make sense.

elihart · 2019-04-24T15:41:28Z

mvrx/src/main/kotlin/com/airbnb/mvrx/BaseMvRxViewModel.kt

@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ abstract class BaseMvRxViewModel<S : MvRxState>(
    private val stateStore: MvRxStateStore<S> = RealMvRxStateStore(initialState)
 ) : ViewModel() {
    private val debugMode = if (MvRxTestOverrides.FORCE_DEBUG == null) debugMode else MvRxTestOverrides.FORCE_DEBUG
+    private val forceUserTestObserver = MvRxTestOverrides.FORCE_USE_TEST_OBSERVER


looks like a spelling mistake user instead of use

Is it necessary to add a property instead of referencing FORCE_USE_TEST_OBSERVER directly?

Hm, actually on second thought , maybe I should call this FORCE_DISABLE_LIFECYCLE_AWARE_OBSERVER .
About using directly flag I was just trying to fallow same code style as you guys have for debugMode . I see that is a bit different in this case because of conditional. I don't have strong opinion on this, whatever you guys want.

@kojadin you can use it directly inline and the new name sounds good 👍

gpeal

This seems pretty reasonable to me. Can you include some tests to both test and demonstrate the usage of this?

@BenSchwab @elihart What do you think?

gpeal · 2019-04-24T15:39:19Z

mvrx/src/main/kotlin/com/airbnb/mvrx/BaseMvRxViewModel.kt

@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ abstract class BaseMvRxViewModel<S : MvRxState>(
    private val stateStore: MvRxStateStore<S> = RealMvRxStateStore(initialState)
 ) : ViewModel() {
    private val debugMode = if (MvRxTestOverrides.FORCE_DEBUG == null) debugMode else MvRxTestOverrides.FORCE_DEBUG
+    private val forceUserTestObserver = MvRxTestOverrides.FORCE_USE_TEST_OBSERVER


typo: forceUseTestObserver

Actually, I was thinking to rename to forceDisableLifecycleAwareObserver and flag to FORCE_DISABLE_LIFECYCLE_AWARE_OBSERVER . WYT?

gpeal · 2019-04-24T15:41:24Z

testing/src/main/kotlin/com/airbnb/mvrx/test/MvRxTestRule.kt

@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ class MvRxTestRule(
        RxAndroidPlugins.setMainThreadSchedulerHandler { Schedulers.trampoline() }
        if (setRxImmediateSchedulers) setRxImmediateSchedulers()
        MvRxTestOverridesProxy.forceMvRxDebug(debugMode.value)
+        MvRxTestOverridesProxy.forceUseTestObserver(true)


Did you intentionally make this not configurable? You can include it in the TestRule constructor as an optional and default-true param.

I was thinking to make it configurable, similar as for debugMode, but I could think on case when you will need lifecycle aware observer for unit tests. You can't use MvRxTestRule for automation tests because everything would happen in main thread. Maybe robolectric ? WYT ?

Actually on second look Rx immediate schedulers are also configurable, so I make this also configurable.

…ndable

kojadin · 2019-04-25T08:07:45Z

Tests added.

gpeal · 2019-04-25T15:58:20Z

testing/src/test/kotlin/com/airbnb/android/mvrx/test/TestRuleView.kt

+
+    init {
+        viewModel.subscribe {
+            subscribeCallCount++


Would this not have been called before without your TestRule? Subscribe from inside of a viewModel isn't lifecycle aware because the ViewModel itself only has one lifecycle: onCleared. I expected this to be used to tests subscribing from the test itself.

This is actually a fragment, I think the fact that it is in init is confusing, but I understand that's probably easier than driving lifecycle in the tests.

So, this was the exact problem. This subscribe is an extension function available inside MvRxView. Without the TestRule, this callback was never called in unit tests.

Exactly, this is a view and it would not be called before. There is a test MvRxTestRuleTestLifecycleAwareObserverEnabled where you can see that this wouldn't be called. The reason I used init is because I was trying to be consistent and use same approach that you guys have in TestRuleViewModel

Got it. Thanks for the explanation

BenSchwab

Seems reasonable to me

BenSchwab · 2019-04-26T02:24:23Z

mvrx/src/main/kotlin/com/airbnb/mvrx/MvRxTestOverrides.java

+     * This should only be set by the MvRxTestRule from the mvrx-testing artifact.
+     *
+     * This can be used to force MvRxViewModels to disable lifecycle aware observer for unit testing.
+     * This is Java so it can be packgage private.


typo packgage

Milivoje Kojadinovic added 2 commits April 24, 2019 11:13

Replace lifecycle aware observer with regular one for unit tests

59e1e02

Remove observable strategy and use subscribe resolver

7f2c2dc

kojadin changed the title ~~Not using lifecycle aware observer for unit tests (airbnb#198)~~ Not using lifecycle aware observer for unit tests Apr 24, 2019

tasomaniac reviewed Apr 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

elihart reviewed Apr 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

gpeal reviewed Apr 24, 2019

View reviewed changes

Milivoje Kojadinovic added 2 commits April 25, 2019 09:16

Renaming and small moving of few variables to make code more understa…

36793e5

…ndable

Make force disable lifecycle aware observer configurable. Adding tests.

b1381a1

gpeal reviewed Apr 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

BenSchwab approved these changes Apr 26, 2019

View reviewed changes

Milivoje Kojadinovic added 2 commits April 26, 2019 08:38

Using static property directly inline

c87696d

Fit typo packgage > package

e1b176c

gpeal merged commit 10febde into airbnb:master May 3, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Not using lifecycle aware observer for unit tests #235

Not using lifecycle aware observer for unit tests #235

kojadin commented Apr 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

tasomaniac Apr 24, 2019

kojadin Apr 25, 2019

elihart Apr 24, 2019

kojadin Apr 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

gpeal Apr 25, 2019

kojadin Apr 26, 2019

gpeal left a comment •

edited

Loading

gpeal Apr 24, 2019

kojadin Apr 25, 2019

gpeal Apr 24, 2019

kojadin Apr 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

kojadin Apr 25, 2019

kojadin commented Apr 25, 2019

gpeal Apr 25, 2019

BenSchwab Apr 26, 2019

tasomaniac Apr 26, 2019

kojadin Apr 26, 2019

gpeal Apr 26, 2019

BenSchwab left a comment

BenSchwab Apr 26, 2019

kojadin Apr 26, 2019

Not using lifecycle aware observer for unit tests #235

Not using lifecycle aware observer for unit tests #235

Conversation

kojadin commented Apr 24, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kojadin Apr 25, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gpeal left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kojadin Apr 25, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kojadin commented Apr 25, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BenSchwab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kojadin commented Apr 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

kojadin Apr 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

gpeal left a comment •

edited

Loading

kojadin Apr 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading