frontend: add additional test for api select #995
Conversation
BacLuc
force-pushed
the
frontend-add-tests-api-select
branch
from
fb26309 to
f9bf9cf
Compare
BacLuc
force-pushed
the
frontend-add-tests-api-select
branch
from
f9bf9cf to
1a1e33e
Compare
| function mockPromiseResolving (value) { | ||
| return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { | ||
| const timer = setTimeout(() => { | ||
| clearTimeout(timer) | ||
| resolve(value) | ||
| }, 100) | ||
| }) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| class MockStubbing { | ||
| constructor (fieldName, value) { | ||
| this._fieldName = fieldName | ||
| this._value = value | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| forFieldName (fieldName) { | ||
| this._fieldName = fieldName | ||
| return this | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| get fieldName () { | ||
| return this._fieldName | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| get value () { | ||
| return this._value | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| class ApiMockState { | ||
| constructor () { | ||
| this._get = jest.fn() | ||
| this._patch = jest.fn() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| getMocks () { | ||
| return { | ||
| get: this._get, | ||
| patch: this._patch | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| get () { | ||
| const apiMock = this | ||
| return { | ||
| thenReturn (mockStubbing) { | ||
| if (!(mockStubbing instanceof MockStubbing)) { | ||
| throw new Error('apiMock must be instance of MockStubbing') | ||
| } | ||
| if (mockStubbing.fieldName === undefined || mockStubbing.value === undefined) { | ||
| throw new Error('fieldName and value must be defined') | ||
| } | ||
| apiMock._get.mockReturnValue({ | ||
| [mockStubbing.fieldName]: mockStubbing.value, | ||
| _meta: { | ||
| load: Promise.resolve(mockStubbing.value) | ||
| } | ||
| }) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| patch () { | ||
| const apiMock = this | ||
| return { | ||
| thenReturn (mockStubbing) { | ||
| if (!(mockStubbing instanceof MockStubbing)) { | ||
| throw new Error('apiMock must be instance of MockStubbing') | ||
| } | ||
| if (mockStubbing.fieldName !== undefined || mockStubbing.value === undefined) { | ||
| throw new Error('fieldName must be undefined and value must be defined') | ||
| } | ||
| apiMock._patch.mockReturnValue(mockPromiseResolving(mockStubbing.value)) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export class ApiMock { | ||
| static create () { | ||
| return new ApiMockState() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| static success (value) { | ||
| return new MockStubbing(undefined, value) | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, that's a lot of code for adding just a single test. This looks like something we could integrate directly in hal-json-vuex, would you agree? I am worried that this will be hard to maintain if it's sitting here.
Is there a special reason why this is necessary here and not in the other ApiFormComponent tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I started here and thought i don't want this massive object in the test just to mock the api.
For the next tests, my live will be easier.
It would be nice if hal-json-vuex would offer a way to mock itself in tests.
I would wait a little to look if it really helps to write shorter tests with less boilerplate, and then we can migrate it to hal-json-vuex.
I also did not check if my mocks represent the behaviour of hal-json-vuex correctly, it worked for that test.
With JUnit you normally just write the hierarchy in the test like:
const api = jest.fn()
const get = jest.fn()
api.mockReturnValue('get', get)
get.mockReturnValue
Maybe there is a reason to not write such a mocking helper, but to repeat yourself?
| const timer = setTimeout(() => { | ||
| clearTimeout(timer) | ||
| resolve(value) | ||
| }, 100) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Warum reichen 100 Millisekunden? Was garantiert uns dass wir das nicht beim nächsten Test auf 200 Millisekunden hochschrauben müssen? Könnte man auch 0 Millisekunden nehmen? In JavaScript ist ein Timeout von 0 Millisekunden ausreichend, um auf die nächste Runde des Event Loops zu warten. Vielleicht brauchts auch gar keinen Timeout?
return new Promise((resolve) => {
resolve(value)
})There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ist von ApiWrapper kopiert
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ja, habe ich inzwischen auch gesehen. Das sollte dann wenn möglich auch dort abgelöst werden.
No description provided.