Github user jagdeepsingh2 commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1245#discussion_r237714079
  
    --- Diff: 
metron-platform/metron-parsers/src/test/java/org/apache/metron/parsers/regex/RegularExpressionsParserTest.java
 ---
    @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
    +/**
    + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more 
contributor license
    + * agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for 
additional information regarding
    + * copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under the Apache 
License, Version 2.0 (the
    + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the 
License. You may obtain a
    + * copy of the License at
    + *
    + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
    + *
    + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software 
distributed under the License
    + * is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF 
ANY KIND, either express
    + * or implied. See the License for the specific language governing 
permissions and limitations under
    + * the License.
    + */
    +package org.apache.metron.parsers.regex;
    +
    +import org.json.simple.JSONObject;
    +import org.json.simple.parser.JSONParser;
    +import org.junit.Before;
    +import org.junit.Test;
    +
    +import java.nio.file.Files;
    +import java.nio.file.Paths;
    +import java.util.HashMap;
    +import java.util.List;
    +import java.util.Map;
    +
    +import static org.junit.Assert.assertTrue;
    +
    +public class RegularExpressionsParserTest {
    +
    +  private RegularExpressionsParser regularExpressionsParser;
    +  private JSONObject parserConfig;
    +
    +  @Before
    +  public void setUp() throws Exception {
    +    regularExpressionsParser = new RegularExpressionsParser();
    +  }
    +
    +  @Test
    +  public void testSSHDParse() throws Exception {
    +    String message =
    +        "<38>Jun 20 15:01:17 deviceName sshd[11672]: Accepted publickey 
for prod from 22.22.22.22 port 55555 ssh2";
    +
    +    parserConfig = getJsonConfig(
    +        
Paths.get("src/test/resources/config/RegularExpressionsParserConfig.json").toString());
    +    regularExpressionsParser.configure(parserConfig);
    +    JSONObject parsed = parse(message);
    +    // Expected
    +    Map<String, Object> expectedJson = new HashMap<>();
    +    expectedJson.put("device_name", "deviceName");
    +    expectedJson.put("dst_process_name", "sshd");
    +    expectedJson.put("dst_process_id", "11672");
    +    expectedJson.put("dst_user_id", "prod");
    +    expectedJson.put("ip_src_addr", "22.22.22.22");
    +    expectedJson.put("ip_src_port", "55555");
    +    expectedJson.put("app_protocol", "ssh2");
    +    assertTrue(validate(expectedJson, parsed));
    +
    +  }
    +
    +  @Test
    +  public void testNoMessageHeaderRegex() throws Exception {
    +    String message =
    +        "<38>Jun 20 15:01:17 deviceName sshd[11672]: Accepted publickey 
for prod from 22.22.22.22 port 55555 ssh2";
    +    parserConfig = getJsonConfig(
    +        
Paths.get("src/test/resources/config/RegularExpressionsNoMessageHeaderParserConfig.json")
    +            .toString());
    +    regularExpressionsParser.configure(parserConfig);
    +    JSONObject parsed = parse(message);
    +    // Expected
    +    Map<String, Object> expectedJson = new HashMap<>();
    +    expectedJson.put("dst_process_name", "sshd");
    +    expectedJson.put("dst_process_id", "11672");
    +    expectedJson.put("dst_user_id", "prod");
    +    expectedJson.put("ip_src_addr", "22.22.22.22");
    +    expectedJson.put("ip_src_port", "55555");
    +    expectedJson.put("app_protocol", "ssh2");
    +    assertTrue(validate(expectedJson, parsed));
    --- End diff --
    
    I personally found junit logging to be insufficient. I wanted more 
information in the logs. Also expectedJson.put("ip_src_port", "55555"); was 
more concise than its counterpart.  
    
    Other advantage of using this method was it would let you know all the 
failed scenarios in one run. While a failed JUnit assertion will stop the test 
case then and there itself. 
    
    Also, Junit best practices state that maximum one assertion per test case. 
Now if we want to follow this best practice, we will have to write a unit test 
per field which again does not feel right. Having the validate method let us 
follow the Junit best practices.
    
    Do you still want me to remove validate method ?


---

Reply via email to