On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:04 AM Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < > jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> Hello, >> Definitely running single tests is something that would be great, >> specially if you are TDDing something waiting 30-40 seconds to get feedback >> is a little cumbersome when the test you are concerned with take less then >> a second. >> >> In the process: >> 1. Write a test >> 2. Make the test pass >> 3. Refactor >> > > Sure, makes sense for development. As I spend 99% of my time reviewing and > testing these days, I was just relaying my pain points :-) > > >> >> in between each step you run the test more then 1 time, and depending on >> the refactoring you might need to run it several times. So imagine waiting >> 30 seconds per run to get results. To run a subset of tests is a pain >> because you need to be always changing the way you run the tests..... >> >> I believe we could archive a better granularity and choosing what test to >> run if we used a runner like pytest or nose to do it. What was the reason >> behind handrolling a test runner script? I am asking this because in a >> previous job I decided to handroll a unittest loader script and that was >> something that I regretted every time I had to touch it, and eventually was >> in the process of changing it to pytest. >> > > Pure newbie-ism. I have no objections to changing to something else, if it > reduces our tech debt. > > >> >> I looked into pytest to replace the current the current runtest, and the >> major problem I found was the testscenarios integration(See Note 1). It can >> be done but we would need to change all the test functions to receive the >> scenario variables through arguments on the function. Also didn't dug much >> into setting all the variables that we need there and all the environment. >> The other issue that I do not like very much about pytest is the fact >> that you loose the unittest assertion that is not so bad because there are >> some neat libraries like: https://github.com/grappa-py/grappa, >> https://github.com/ActivisionGameScience/assertpy, >> https://github.com/dgilland/verify. Personally I really like the syntax >> of Grapa, but the Veridfy one is pretty similar to Jasmine too. >> >> What are your thoughts? >> > > Huh, I also really like the grappa syntax. It's nice and readable. > > >> >> >> >> Note 1: As an example of what our functions would have to look like you >> can see: >> https://github.com/OriMenashe/pytest-scenario/blob/master/tests/test_parametrize.py >> As a example this class: >> > > Without a diff, it's hard to be sure, but it looks like the only change > was BaseTestGenerator to object on the first line? > See the function signature, that is the cumbersome issue
> > >> class ServersWithServiceIDAddTestCase(BaseTestGenerator): >> """ This class will add the servers under default server group. """ >> >> scenarios = [ >> # Fetch the default url for server object >> ( >> 'Default Server Node url', dict( >> url='/browser/server/obj/' >> ) >> ) >> ] >> >> def setUp(self): >> pass >> >> def runTest(self): >> """ This function will add the server under default server group.""" >> url = "{0}{1}/".format(self.url, utils.SERVER_GROUP) >> # Add service name in the config >> self.server['service'] = "TestDB" >> response = self.tester.post( >> url, >> data=json.dumps(self.server), >> content_type='html/json' >> ) >> self.assertEquals(response.status_code, 200) >> response_data = json.loads(response.data.decode('utf-8')) >> self.server_id = response_data['node']['_id'] >> >> def tearDown(self): >> """This function delete the server from SQLite """ >> utils.delete_server_with_api(self.tester, self.server_id) >> >> Would have to look changed to: >> >> class ServersWithServiceIDAddTestCase(object): >> """ This class will add the servers under default server group. """ >> >> scenarios = [ >> # Fetch the default url for server object >> ( >> 'Default Server Node url', dict( >> url='/browser/server/obj/' >> ) >> ) >> ] >> >> def setUp(self): >> pass >> >> def runTest(self, url): >> """ This function will add the server under default server group.""" >> url = "{0}{1}/".format(url, utils.SERVER_GROUP) >> # Add service name in the config >> self.server['service'] = "TestDB" >> response = self.tester.post( >> url, >> data=json.dumps(self.server), >> content_type='html/json' >> ) >> self.assertEquals(response.status_code, 200) >> response_data = json.loads(response.data.decode('utf-8')) >> self.server_id = response_data['node']['_id'] >> >> def tearDown(self): >> """This function delete the server from SQLite """ >> utils.delete_server_with_api(self.tester, self.server_id) >> >> >> >> Thanks >> Joao >> >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 8:31 AM Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Khushboo, >>>> Completely forgot about this python "feature"....... >>>> Attached is the fix. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, applied. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Just as a side question, does anyone else feel the pain of wanting to >>>> run a single test using a IDE or the command line and not being able to? >>>> >>> >>> Not really - the Python and JS tests are so quick I don't really care >>> (and with the Python ones, I can execute for a single module for even more >>> speed). >>> >>> What I would *really* like, is the ability to run individual feature >>> tests. That would be very valuable and save me a ton of time. >>> >>> >>> >>>> We an HandRolled the loader, and that as some implications. Did anyone >>>> try to use a different launcher like pytest or nose instead of the current >>>> runner? >>>> I understand that testscenarios is one of the problems we have if we >>>> want to move away from this way of running tests. >>>> Any suggestion? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Joao >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:41 PM Khushboo Vashi < >>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Joao, >>>>> >>>>> In the test_start_running_query.py, 2 static methods >>>>> (is_begin_required_for_sql_query >>>>> and is_rollback_statement_required) >>>>> of StartRunningQuery class were used directly without @patch. Due to >>>>> this, in all the cases, the original value of them doesn't restore. >>>>> >>>>> To fix this, I have sent the patch in another thread, to restore its >>>>> original state, but I wonder if we can use these methods with @patch. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Khushboo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Support EXPLAIN on Greenplum. Fixes #3097 >>>>>> >>>>>> - Extract SQLEditor.execute and SQLEditor._poll into their own files >>>>>> and add test around them >>>>>> - Extract SQLEditor backend functions that start executing query to >>>>>> their own files and add tests around it >>>>>> - Move the Explain SQL from the front-end and now pass the Explain >>>>>> plan parameters as a JSON object in the start query call. >>>>>> - Extract the compile_template_name into a function that can be used >>>>>> by the different places that try to select the version of the template >>>>>> and >>>>>> the server type >>>>>> >>>>>> Branch >>>>>> ------ >>>>>> master >>>>>> >>>>>> Details >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> >>>>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin4.git;a=commitdiff;h=e16a95275336529a734bf0066889e39cc8ef0662 >>>>>> Author: Joao Pedro De Almeida Pereira <jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> >>>>>> >>>>>> Modified Files >>>>>> -------------- >>>>>> .../databases/schemas/tables/tests/test_utils.py | 0 >>>>>> web/pgadmin/static/js/sqleditor/execute_query.js | 287 ++++ >>>>>> .../js/sqleditor/is_new_transaction_required.js | 14 + >>>>>> .../static/js/sqleditor/query_tool_actions.js | 33 +- >>>>>> web/pgadmin/tools/sqleditor/__init__.py | 396 +---- >>>>>> web/pgadmin/tools/sqleditor/static/js/sqleditor.js | 227 +-- >>>>>> .../sqleditor/sql/10_plus/explain_plan.sql | 23 + >>>>>> .../sqleditor/sql/9.2_plus/explain_plan.sql | 20 + >>>>>> .../sqleditor/sql/default/explain_plan.sql | 17 + >>>>>> .../sqleditor/sql/gpdb_5.0_plus/explain_plan.sql | 5 + >>>>>> web/pgadmin/tools/sqleditor/tests/__init__.py | 8 + >>>>>> .../sqleditor/tests/test_explain_plan_templates.py | 152 ++ >>>>>> .../test_extract_sql_from_network_parameters.py | 59 + >>>>>> .../tools/sqleditor/tests/test_start_query_tool.py | 38 + >>>>>> web/pgadmin/tools/sqleditor/utils/__init__.py | 14 + >>>>>> .../sqleditor/utils/apply_explain_plan_wrapper.py | 24 + >>>>>> .../tools/sqleditor/utils/constant_definition.py | 32 + >>>>>> .../tools/sqleditor/utils/is_begin_required.py | 169 ++ >>>>>> .../tools/sqleditor/utils/start_running_query.py | 172 ++ >>>>>> .../tools/sqleditor/utils/tests/__init__.py | 8 + >>>>>> .../utils/tests/test_apply_explain_plan_wrapper.py | 121 ++ >>>>>> .../utils/tests/test_start_running_query.py | 445 +++++ >>>>>> .../utils/update_session_grid_transaction.py | 18 + >>>>>> web/pgadmin/utils/compile_template_name.py | 17 + >>>>>> .../utils/tests/test_compile_template_name.py | 34 + >>>>>> web/pgadmin/utils/versioned_template_loader.py | 2 +- >>>>>> web/regression/javascript/fake_endpoints.js | 6 +- >>>>>> .../javascript/sqleditor/execute_query_spec.js | 1702 >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> .../sqleditor/is_new_transaction_required_spec.js | 65 + >>>>>> .../sqleditor/query_tool_actions_spec.js | 141 +- >>>>>> 30 files changed, 3670 insertions(+), 579 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Page >>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >>> Twitter: @pgsnake >>> >>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>> >> > > > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >