Channels
#kotest
Title
# kotest
w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 5:09 PMIs there any way to add a test using a
ListenerExtensione
Emil Kantis
11/14/2023, 5:12 PMYou can intercept each testcase with an extension and validate that the test has cleaned up, and change the result of the test otherwise
w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 5:13 PMThat sounds interesting... I only want to perform the check once, after all test cases in a class have finished.
I suppose I could do it in an
afterSpecl
LeoColman
11/14/2023, 6:50 PMMaybe test factories? https://kotest.io/docs/framework/test-factories.html
e
Emil Kantis
11/14/2023, 6:57 PMyeah if you want it to show up as a test then I think a test factory is the best option
w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 6:59 PMThat would mean that each test class which needs this check applied would have to include that factory, right? And would have to include it after all the other tests are defined? Is that right?
l
LeoColman
11/14/2023, 7:00 PMI think yes.
It seems possible, but as per your description I'm not completely sure I understood your usecase
w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 7:01 PMI'm writing integration tests which interact with a database. The tests can be run in two different modes:
1. Isolated, using a containerised database that is empty to start, and will be destroyed after the tests.
2. Clustered, using a persistent database that exists prior to the test execution and will continue to exist afterwards.
I want to add a test case to all of these integration tests which fails if the tests have left any records behind in the database. This new test case has to run after all the other tests.
The problem I see with a test factory is that someone writing the integration test could easily forget to include the check. I would rather have it included as a listener which can be added by the integration test parent class.
l
LeoColman
11/14/2023, 7:07 PMIt seems like an AfterTest/AfterSpec of some sort indeed. Could also be put in
afterProjecte
Emil Kantis
11/14/2023, 7:10 PMI think it would be a lot more convenient to add this is a check with a
TestCaseExtensionOtherwise I suppose you could write a base class for your integration tests which mimics a spec, but also adds this test implicitly.
Copy code
abstract class DbSpec(function: FunSpec.() -> Unit) : FunSpec(
{
function()
test("db should be empty"){}
},
)w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 7:13 PMThat would be a really nice approach if each test case cleaned up after itself, however, that's rarely the case in these integration tests. Instead, a user story is written as many test cases executed in order. So only at the end of the spec do we expect the database to have been cleaned up.
I think that base class suggestion would work. It's very similar to what I was considering but just different enough. I was going to do something very similar with an
initinitinitinite
Emil Kantis
11/14/2023, 7:30 PMYeah I think it should do the trick 🙂
w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 7:30 PMThanks to both of you.
e
Emil Kantis
11/14/2023, 7:30 PMOnly downside is that its hard to enforce that its used where appropiate, but perhaps you could leverage some static analysis tool to check that
w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 7:32 PMYeah, I don't think that'll be too much of an issue. I already have a base class that does a lot of important thinks for the integration tests (like manage that containerised database), so a spec won't be able to do much without using the base class.
👍 1
sad panda That base class method doesn't quite work. The lambda body gets executed before a child class's
inite
Emil Kantis
11/14/2023, 8:02 PMd'oh.. didnt think of that.. 😞
w
Wesley Hartford
11/14/2023, 9:03 PMI think I've found a pretty good solution based on your suggestion to use a
TestCaseExtension