Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add provider specific e2e testing #17

Open
jn9e9 opened this issue Jan 26, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

add provider specific e2e testing #17

jn9e9 opened this issue Jan 26, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@jn9e9
Copy link
Collaborator

jn9e9 commented Jan 26, 2021

ci testing follows same format as rust client in that it allows an end to end suite for all providers and individual test suites for each provider in turn.

Currently ci testing only supports the all providers variant - expand to do other providers individually.

Docker files and scripts are in place, but e2etest/scripts/ci.sh does not support yet, and we probably need to use build tags to control which tests to include.

The docker build now pulls from a common e2e image that is used for parsec. We could parameterise the go client local image to specify the required features to reduce the number of docker files in the e2e go client tests

@hug-dev
Copy link
Member

hug-dev commented Jan 27, 2021

Note that our end-to-end test suite in Parsec was made to test the service mostly (even though it ends up testing everything).
@ionut-arm wrote those parts, but as far as I can remember we thought that it would be to test the client with the service (if that makes sense?) so we ended up testing the client mocking the transport layer (see here.

Some end-to-end tests is probably useful with the Go client to make sure it all works but my point is that maybe it's too much doing it on all providers. Maybe just doing some end-to-end testing on a service with all providers is enough?

About Dockerfile, doing this parallaxsecond/parsec#124 might be useful to speed things up

jn9e9 added a commit to jn9e9/parsec-client-go that referenced this issue Mar 19, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants