Automated QA: Unit tests with other mocked infrastructure dependencies like logger, database, etc

[0x4007]

A lengthy goal would be to also include unit tests with mocked github events and other mocked infrastructure dependencies like logger, database, etc leading to the possibility of high coverage and test-driven development style.

Originally posted by @web4er in #626 (comment)

[kamaalsultan]

It would be good if someone hurries for this. I am not allowed.

[ubiquibot]

@ByteBallet The time limit for this bounty is on Fri, 25 Aug 2023 17:47:30 UTC

[0x4007]

I'll make an exception for tests. I think it will be fast to merge in because we don't need to really QA test it.

[kamaalsultan]

Since we migrated log from mezmo to supabase, supabase test is enough, isn't it?

[0x4007]

Not sure what that means but sounds like @0xcodercrane territory

[web4er]

I am looking forward to this.

Following are some points that I consider for high-quality unit tests.

• must be fast to run for programmers to get a quick feedback
• should be deterministic
• unit tests must be isolated, one test should not depend on other
• test behavior, not implementation
• no heavy mocking. In a unit test, a unit is not necessarily a function or a class, it is a unit of requirements.

[0xcodercrane]

Since we migrated log from mezmo to supabase, supabase test is enough, isn't it?

We've created an adapter for supabase so it's fine that have the unit tests for supabase adapter. no need for supabase-js itself

[0xcodercrane]

no heavy mocking. In a unit test, a unit is not necessarily a function or a class, it is a unit of requirements.

What do you mean by unit of requirements? In my opinion, it should be either a function or class.

[ubiquibot]

Do you have any updates @ByteBallet? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop
Last activity time: Sat Aug 26 2023 07:08:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

[kamaalsultan]

Would it be okay to create another supbase db for testing?

[web4er]

What do you mean by unit of requirements? In my opinion, it should be either a function or class.

You are right. I see not-so-good wording used by me here. Basically, what I am trying to say is if a function or a class that is subject under test, is calling another function, do not mock that function.

Developers try to achieve test in isolation. Here, they try to isolate function or class which is the subject under test. This results in heavy mocking. Test in isolation is for the "test" not the "subject under tests".

But you can mock for one of 2 reasons:

• it slows down test speed, e.g. http request
• shared fixture where one test can affect another test e.g. file or db

[ubiquibot]

Do you have any updates @ByteBallet? If you would like to release the bounty back to the DevPool, please comment /stop
Last activity time: Wed Aug 30 2023 09:28:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

[kamaalsultan]

Currently in progress.

[kamaalsultan]

We've created an adapter for supabase so it's fine that have the unit tests for supabase adapter. no need for supabase-js itself

In case using supabase adapter, isn't the database affected? or should I just assume that the test is not done for production db?

[kamaalsultan]

/stop

[ubiquibot]

You have been unassigned from the bounty @ByteBallet

[0xcodercrane]

We've created an adapter for supabase so it's fine that have the unit tests for supabase adapter. no need for supabase-js itself

In case using supabase adapter, isn't the database affected? or should I just assume that the test is not done for production db?

The database isn't affected.