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

DO NOT MERGE test(subscriber): additional testing of integration tests on CI #458

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

hds
Copy link
Collaborator

@hds hds commented Aug 18, 2023

This is a second playground for fixing #452.

hds added 2 commits August 1, 2023 17:32
The `console-subscriber` crate has no integration tests. There are some
unit tests, but without very high coverage of features.

Recently, we've found or fixed a few errors which probably could have
been caught by a medium level of integration testing.

However, testing `console-subscriber` isn't straight forward. It is
effectively a tracing subscriber (or layer) on one end, and a gRPC
server on the other end.

This change adds enough of a testing framework to write some initial
integration tests. It is the first step towards closing #450.

Each test comprises 2 parts:
- One or more "expcted tasks"
- A future which will be driven to completion on a dedicated Tokio runtime.

Behind the scenes, a console subscriber layer is created and it's server
part is connected to a duplex stream. The client of the duplex stream
then records incoming updates and reconstructs "actual tasks". The layer
itself is set as the default subscriber for the duration of `block_on`
which is used to drive the provided future to completioin.

The expected tasks have a set of "matches", which is how we find the
actual task that we want to validate against. Currently, the only value
we match on is the task's name.

The expected tasks also have a set of expectations. These are other
fields on the actual task which are validated once a matching task is
found. Currently, the two fields which can have expectations set on them
are the `wakes` and `self_wakes` fields.

So, to construct an expected task, which will match a task with the name
`"my-task"` and then validate that the matched task gets woken once, the
code would be:

```rust
ExpectedTask::default()
    .match_name("my-task")
    .expect_wakes(1);
```

A future which passes this test could be:

```rust
async {
    task::Builder::new()
        .name("my-task")
        .spawn(async {
            tokio::time::sleep(std::time::Duration::ZERO).await
        })
}
```

The full test would then look like:

```rust
fn wakes_once() {
    let expected_task = ExpectedTask::default()
        .match_name("my-task")
        .expect_wakes(1);

    let future = async {
        task::Builder::new()
            .name("my-task")
            .spawn(async {
                tokio::time::sleep(std::time::Duration::ZERO).await
            })
    };

    assert_task(expected_task, future);
}
```

The PR depends on 2 others:
 - #447 which fixes an error in the logic that determines whether a task
   is retained in the aggregator or not.
 - #451 which exposes the server parts and is necessary to allow us to
   connect the instrument server and client via a duplex channel.

This change contains some initial tests for wakes and self wakes which
would have caught the error fixed in #430. Additionally there are tests
for the functionality of the testing framework itself.
@hds hds changed the title test(subscriber): add initial integration tests test(subscriber): additional testing of integration tests on CI Aug 21, 2023
@hds hds changed the title test(subscriber): additional testing of integration tests on CI DO NOT MERGE test(subscriber): additional testing of integration tests on CI Aug 21, 2023
@hds
Copy link
Collaborator Author

hds commented Aug 29, 2023

No longer needed.

@hds hds closed this Aug 29, 2023
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant