[BREAKING] Create a new `loop:` section and integrate it with the features of the `retry:` section. #97

k1LoW · 2022-08-17T08:35:03Z

From #90 (comment), I would like to create a new loop: section and integrate it with the features of the retry: section.

`steps[*].loop:` `steps.<key>.loop:`

Loop settings for steps.

Simple loop usage

steps:
  multicartin:
    loop: 10
    req:
      /cart/in:
        post:
          body:
            application/json:
              product_id: "{{ i }}" # The loop count (0..9) is assigned to `i`.
[...]

or

steps:
  multicartin:
    loop:
      count: 10
    req:
      /cart/in:
        post:
          body:
            application/json:
              product_id: "{{ i }}" # The loop count (0..9) is assigned to `i`.
[...]

Retry

It can be used as a retry mechanism by setting a condition in the until: section.

If the condition of until: is met, the loop is broken without waiting for the number of count: to be run.

Also, if the run of the number of count: completes but does not satisfy the condition of until:, then the step is considered to be failed.

steps:
  waitingroom:
    loop:
      count: 10
      until: 'steps.waitingroom.res.status == "201"' # Store values of latest loop
      minInterval: 0.5 # sec
      maxInterval: 10  # sec
      # jitter: 0.0
      # interval: 5
      # multiplier: 1.5
    req:
      /cart/in:
        post:
          body:
[...]

( steps[*].retry: steps.<key>.retry: are deprecated )

k1LoW · 2022-08-17T08:37:05Z

README.md

@@ -355,16 +355,55 @@ steps:
 [...]
 ```

-### `steps[*].retry:` `steps.<key>.retry:`
+### `steps[*].loop:` `steps.<key>.loop:`


@k2tzumi
To share the implementation image, I updated the README first.

I would like to hear your opinion.

I felt strong feelings 👍

We believe that even though it will be difficult to integrate with the functionality of the retry: section, we will try to make sure that it is not on the same level of hierarchy as the loop: section.

Suggested change

### `steps[*].loop:` `steps.<key>.loop:`

### `steps[*].[req|greq].retry:` `steps.<key>.[req|greq].retry:`

We believe it will be like the above.

I use retry: for both db runner and exec runner.
For example, it can wait when updating values to the database asynchronously.
It is also possible to use it in the include runner to wait.

Sure, there's asynchronous processing.

eval.go

k2tzumi · 2022-08-20T04:21:39Z

loop.go

-	retrySectionKey = "retry"
+	loopSectionKey            = "loop"
+	deprecatedRetrySectionKey = "retry" // deprecated
+	loopCountVarKey           = "i"


[nits]
How to name the key if we try to implement a counter for the index of steps[*] in a future feature addition? I was wondering.

Is there a way to concisely describe a case that references an index when testing a response in the same step?

steps: - req: /get?var=foo: get: body: null test: | steps[0].res.status == 200

I wanted to be concise, e.g., to be able to refer to the index of steps[0] by a variable.

I have the same problem as you (To solve this problem, I created a step listing with a map.

How to name the key if we try to implement a counter for the index of steps[*] in a future feature addition? I was wondering.

I'm certainly wondering what to do about it.

If we were to support both Array and Map types, should there be a way to specify the current step as follows?

steps: - req: /get?var=foo: get: body: null test: | current.res.status == 200

steps: reqget: req: /get?var=foo: get: body: null test: | current.res.status == 200

If you have any ideas for naming the step[*] counter and the loop counter well, please let me know!

If we were to support both Array and Map types, should there be a way to specify the current step as follows?

The current key looks very nice, since it can be used in either Map or Array.

I'd like to respond separately from this PR.

@k2tzumi Thank you very much!!

@k2tzumi I invited you to become a collaborator of runn!

Co-authored-by: Katsumi Kato <k2tzumi@users.noreply.github.com>

operator.go

Co-authored-by: Katsumi Kato <k2tzumi@users.noreply.github.com>

k1LoW · 2022-08-20T07:34:02Z

@k2tzumi If you can, I'd be happy to get your comments on whether or not it looks good for us.

k2tzumi · 2022-08-20T07:52:08Z

testdata/book/httpbin.yml

+      steps[5].res.status == 204
+    # FIXME: I'd like to see the last status be 200.


@k1LoW

What is the best rule for referencing the result of a loop process?

Keep only the final result.
Currently, I think the first result is referenced.

Allow reference to the result of each loop.
steps[5].res[4].status.

Maybe the until: condition is incorrect.

- until: 'steps[5].res.status != "200"' + until: 'steps[5].res.status == 200'

Fixed 👍 c26f27c

k2tzumi · 2022-08-20T07:54:45Z

testdata/book/httpbin.yml

+    include:
+      path: httpbin_include.yml
+      vars:
+        jsonRequestBody: 'json://{{ vars.loopVars[i] }}'


I was expecting the json to be loaded. 😅

I will try to respond as soon as possible.

PR sent.
#101

k2tzumi · 2022-08-20T07:58:05Z

testdata/book/httpbin_include.yml

+steps:
+  -
+    req:
+      /post?count={{ vars.counter }}:


[NOTE]
I thought I could reference the loop counter directly in the include destination, but I couldn't.
I don't think it's a problem because there are alternatives as per the test scenario.

Suggested change

/post?count={{ vars.counter }}:

/post?count={{ i }}:

I thought I could reference the loop counter directly in the include destination, but I couldn't.

Yes. Because the position of the i variable is root, I thought it would conflict with the loop counter in the included.

I also thought parent.i would be uncool 😄

ref: #97 (comment)

github-actions · 2022-08-20T08:23:54Z

Code Metrics Report

	main (`3de9ed0`)	#97 (`20472e4`)	+/-
Coverage	72.2%	72.5%	+0.3%
Code to Test Ratio	1:0.7	1:0.7	-0.0
Test Execution Time	1m1s	49s	-12s

Details

  |                     | main (3de9ed0) | #97 (20472e4) |  +/-  |
  |---------------------|----------------|---------------|-------|
+ | Coverage            |          72.2% |         72.5% | +0.3% |
  |   Files             |             17 |            17 |     0 |
  |   Lines             |           1886 |          1929 |   +43 |
+ |   Covered           |           1362 |          1399 |   +37 |
- | Code to Test Ratio  |          1:0.7 |         1:0.7 |  -0.0 |
  |   Code              |           3652 |          3723 |   +71 |
+ |   Test              |           2710 |          2712 |    +2 |
+ | Test Execution Time |           1m1s |           49s |  -12s |

Code coverage of files in pull request scope (73.2% → 73.9%)

Files	Coverage	+/-
cond.go	0.0%	-83.3%
eval.go	68.0%	+68.0%
loop.go	97.1%	+97.1%
operator.go	72.8%	-0.2%

Reported by octocov

k2tzumi

@k1LoW
LGTM!

k1LoW · 2022-08-20T08:34:54Z

Thank you!!!!

Update README first

5e53e17

k1LoW self-assigned this Aug 17, 2022

k1LoW commented Aug 17, 2022

View reviewed changes

k1LoW changed the title ~~Create a new loop: section and integrate it with the features of the retry: section.~~ [BREAKING] Create a new loop: section and integrate it with the features of the retry: section. Aug 17, 2022

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k1LoW added 3 commits August 17, 2022 21:50

Rename retry to loop

3d06f34

Add loopIndex

272b6b6

Set i as loop counter

728f3b1

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k1LoW added 2 commits August 18, 2022 15:22

Merge branch 'main' into loop

ef19085

Changed value storing strategy.

b46b7c9

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k1LoW added 3 commits August 19, 2022 09:38

bonsai

a812ae1

delete values of prevous loop in recordToArray()

211b148

Support simple loop

45ee43b

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k1LoW added 6 commits August 19, 2022 15:08

Add test for short syntax

a44e19d

bonsai

d92509b

Support loop short syntax and support expression evaluation of count:

984b34f

Fix loop config initialization

096fe19

Add test

7eb18d6

Re fix loop config initialization

781afad

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k1LoW marked this pull request as ready for review August 19, 2022 08:52

k1LoW added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 19, 2022

bonsai

4331c19

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k2tzumi reviewed Aug 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

eval.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

k2tzumi added a commit to k2tzumi/runn that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2022

✅ refs k1LoW#97, append loop test.

95e833f

k2tzumi mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2022

[TEST] Loop k2tzumi/runn#10

Draft

k2tzumi reviewed Aug 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

k1LoW and others added 2 commits August 20, 2022 15:27

Update eval.go

cba39e5

Co-authored-by: Katsumi Kato <k2tzumi@users.noreply.github.com>

Handle error

18507ce

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k2tzumi added 2 commits August 20, 2022 16:00

✅ refs #97, append loop test.

f3f4a1e

✅ refs #97, Append include test.

c8ed748

k2tzumi reviewed Aug 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

operator.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

k1LoW requested a review from k2tzumi August 20, 2022 07:26

Update operator.go

e9420b6

Co-authored-by: Katsumi Kato <k2tzumi@users.noreply.github.com>

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k1LoW requested review from k2tzumi and removed request for k2tzumi August 20, 2022 07:30

k2tzumi mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2022

[TEST] loop: section #100

Merged

Merge remote-tracking branch 'k2tzumi/loop-test' into loop

e71943e

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

k2tzumi reviewed Aug 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

Fix until condition

c26f27c

ref: #97 (comment)

k2tzumi approved these changes Aug 20, 2022

View reviewed changes

k1LoW merged commit 2b3027b into main Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW deleted the loop branch August 20, 2022 08:34

k2tzumi mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022

Ensure a means of accessing the current step variable #113

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[BREAKING] Create a new `loop:` section and integrate it with the features of the `retry:` section. #97

[BREAKING] Create a new `loop:` section and integrate it with the features of the `retry:` section. #97

k1LoW commented Aug 17, 2022 •

edited

Loading

k1LoW Aug 17, 2022

k2tzumi Aug 17, 2022

k1LoW Aug 17, 2022

k2tzumi Aug 18, 2022

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

k2tzumi Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022

k2tzumi Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

k1LoW commented Aug 20, 2022

This comment has been minimized.

k2tzumi Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022

k2tzumi Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022

k2tzumi Aug 20, 2022

k2tzumi Aug 20, 2022

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Aug 20, 2022

k2tzumi left a comment

k1LoW commented Aug 20, 2022

	### `steps[*].loop:` `steps.<key>.loop:`
	### `steps[*].[req\|greq].retry:` `steps.<key>.[req\|greq].retry:`

		steps[5].res.status == 204
		# FIXME: I'd like to see the last status be 200.

[BREAKING] Create a new loop: section and integrate it with the features of the retry: section. #97

[BREAKING] Create a new loop: section and integrate it with the features of the retry: section. #97

Conversation

k1LoW commented Aug 17, 2022 • edited Loading

steps[*].loop: steps.<key>.loop:

Simple loop usage

Retry

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

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

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

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

k1LoW commented Aug 20, 2022

This comment has been minimized.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 • 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Aug 20, 2022

Code Metrics Report

Code coverage of files in pull request scope (73.2% → 73.9%)

k2tzumi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

k1LoW commented Aug 20, 2022

[BREAKING] Create a new `loop:` section and integrate it with the features of the `retry:` section. #97

[BREAKING] Create a new `loop:` section and integrate it with the features of the `retry:` section. #97

k1LoW commented Aug 17, 2022 •

edited

Loading

`steps[*].loop:` `steps.<key>.loop:`

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading

k1LoW Aug 20, 2022 •

edited

Loading