Add test suite for the Zulip API bindings #713

Closed
timabbott opened this Issue Apr 27, 2016 · 8 comments

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@timabbott
Member

Currently, the Zulip API bindings don't have an automated test suite. While they're fairly easy to test manually, it'd be really good to have automated tests for them.

@timabbott timabbott added this to the 2016 roadmap milestone Apr 29, 2016
@reyha
Member
reyha commented Oct 19, 2016

@timabbott I am willing to work on this and I am currently going through -https://zulip.readthedocs.io/en/latest/testing.html. I was wondering as to where will these tests possibly live. Any help on how to start writing this suite would be really helpful.

@timabbott
Member

@showell do you have thoughts on where we should put the tests and/or how we should run them?

@showell
Contributor
showell commented Oct 19, 2016

Let's discuss this on Zulip. I don't have any immediate ideas on where to put these tests, but I'd like to be part of the brainstorming. On a related note we're eventually gonna want a test suite for contrib_bots.

@reyha
Member
reyha commented Oct 25, 2016

As discussed over the Zulip chat, ~zulip/api_tests seems like a good place where these tests could possibly be present. Right now, it is okay to start writing the unit tests. Unittest framework is best suited for writing these unit tests. Integration tests can be added as the project proceeds. I need to stop working on this as of now as some other commitments came up. I would like to resume working on this sometime soon.

@timabbott timabbott modified the milestone: Zulip roadmap, Old roadmap Nov 18, 2016
@timabbott
Member

@showell do you think tools/test-api covers this?

@showell
Contributor
showell commented Feb 7, 2017

This is mostly complete, but we should leave it open for one person to make a pass at it. There's at least one endpoint not covered--I don't think we handle uploads.

@timabbott
Member

OK; I think maybe the next step is to do an audit of what is uncovered and open individual issues for those things, and then close this; this issue was originally about having an infrastructure system for doing it, not 100% coverage (which is also a great goal) :).

Old mostly-finished issues like this tend to not be found by folks looking for a way to help.

@showell
Contributor
showell commented Feb 20, 2017

I created a new issue at #3736 to continue this effort, so I'm closing this.

@showell showell closed this Feb 20, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment