[#3028] Increase test coverage of a binding mode of camel-rest component #3052
Conversation
VratislavHais
force-pushed
the
rest-coverage
branch
from
766b5c9
to
78acc9b
Compare
|
@ppalaga @jamesnetherton Can someone of you take a look? |
|
|
||
| @QuarkusTest | ||
| class RestTest { | ||
| private static final Person person = new Person("John", "Doe", 64); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it a requirement to use the same object for json/xml consumer/producer binding ? Otherwise, I would use distinct objects, and maybe with different value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's definitely not a requirement. I just thought it would be a little better to create the object only once. I'll change it as you suggest.
| String query = "rest:get:/rest/binding/json/producer" + | ||
| "?bindingMode=json" + | ||
| "&outType=org.apache.camel.quarkus.component.rest.it.Person" + | ||
| "&host=localhost:" + port; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at this, I am wondering why we need a JAX-RS endpoint to test the rest component? This is perhaps a way to pass bindingMode=json, but it it can also be passed via REST DSL, which we already did before this PR, see https://github.com/apache/camel-quarkus/pull/3052/files#diff-58cbc36531a538cc13ef975a1889ac4ec3b28c54786b5896118916846558a592R64-R71 for JSON and https://github.com/apache/camel-quarkus/pull/3052/files#diff-58cbc36531a538cc13ef975a1889ac4ec3b28c54786b5896118916846558a592R78-R85 for XML.
Is this PR adding anything new given the above two exist?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @ppalaga,
the above two test only Consumer while addition in this PR covers Producer. As you can see within this test coverage result https://fuse-next-jenkins-csb-fuse-qe.apps.ocp4.prod.psi.redhat.com/job/Integration.next/job/camel-quarkus/job/code-coverage/43/Camel_20JaCoCo_20report/org.apache.camel.component.rest/RestProducer.java.html#L272
method createBindingProcessor() is almost entirely untested. With those changes the coverage increase greatly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for explaining, @vhais!
Resolves #3028