Write tests for graphql package #24
Comments
benjaminjkraft
changed the title
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 17, 2021
We have lots of tests covering codegen, but not a lot that actually run the code. For things where all we do is generate types, that's (mostly) fine (especially now that we actually build the code), but as we generate more nontrivial non-type code we need to actually run it. So I wrote some integration tests that spin up a little gqlgen server, and make calls to it; we can add more over time especially as the JSON marshalling logic gets complex (to support fragments). They're more work to write than the snapshot tests, but of course they can test a lot more. In addition to gqlgen, I pulled in testify assert/require, because I really wanted to be able to use assert.Equal and such for these. I didn't bother converting existing tests, although I assume they will become useful elsewhere in time. Both gqlgen and testify are of course only used in tests. Fixes #21 and #24.
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 17, 2021
We have lots of tests covering codegen, but not a lot that actually run the code. For things where all we do is generate types, that's (mostly) fine (especially now that we actually build the code), but as we generate more nontrivial non-type code we need to actually run it. So I wrote some integration tests that spin up a little gqlgen server, and make calls to it; we can add more over time especially as the JSON marshalling logic gets complex (to support fragments). They're more work to write than the snapshot tests, but of course they can test a lot more. In addition to gqlgen, I pulled in testify assert/require, because I really wanted to be able to use assert.Equal and such for these. I didn't bother converting existing tests, although I assume they will become useful elsewhere in time. Both gqlgen and testify are of course only used in tests. Fixes #21 and #24.
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 19, 2021
We have lots of tests covering codegen, but not a lot that actually run the code. For things where all we do is generate types, that's (mostly) fine (especially now that we actually build the code), but as we generate more nontrivial non-type code we need to actually run it. So I wrote some integration tests that spin up a little gqlgen server, and make calls to it; we can add more over time especially as the JSON marshalling logic gets complex (to support fragments). They're more work to write than the snapshot tests, but of course they can test a lot more. In addition to gqlgen, I pulled in testify assert/require, because I really wanted to be able to use assert.Equal and such for these. I didn't bother converting existing tests, although I assume they will become useful elsewhere in time. Both gqlgen and testify are of course only used in tests. Fixes #21 and #24.
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 19, 2021
We have lots of tests covering codegen, but not a lot that actually run the code. For things where all we do is generate types, that's (mostly) fine (especially now that we actually build the code), but as we generate more nontrivial non-type code we need to actually run it. So I wrote some integration tests that spin up a little gqlgen server, and make calls to it; we can add more over time especially as the JSON marshalling logic gets complex (to support fragments). They're more work to write than the snapshot tests, but of course they can test a lot more. In addition to gqlgen, I pulled in testify assert/require, because I really wanted to be able to use assert.Equal and such for these. I didn't bother converting existing tests, although I assume they will become useful elsewhere in time. Both gqlgen and testify are of course only used in tests. Fixes #21 and #24. Issue: #21 Issue: #24 Test plan: make check
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 20, 2021
We have lots of tests covering codegen, but not a lot that actually run the code. For things where all we do is generate types, that's (mostly) fine (especially now that we actually build the code), but as we generate more nontrivial non-type code we need to actually run it. So I wrote some integration tests that spin up a little gqlgen server, and make calls to it; we can add more over time especially as the JSON marshalling logic gets complex (to support fragments). They're more work to write than the snapshot tests, but of course they can test a lot more. In addition to gqlgen, I pulled in testify assert/require, because I really wanted to be able to use assert.Equal and such for these. I didn't bother converting existing tests, although I assume they will become useful elsewhere in time. Both gqlgen and testify are of course only used in tests. Fixes #21 and #24. Issue: #21 Issue: #24 Test plan: make check
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 20, 2021
## Summary: We have lots of tests covering codegen, but not a lot that actually run the code. For things where all we do is generate types, that's (mostly) fine (especially now that we actually build the code), but as we generate more nontrivial non-type code we need to actually run it. So I wrote some integration tests that spin up a little gqlgen server, and make calls to it; we can add more over time especially as the JSON marshalling logic gets complex (to support fragments). They're more work to write than the snapshot tests, but of course they can test a lot more. In addition to gqlgen, I pulled in testify assert/require, because I really wanted to be able to use assert.Equal and such for these. I didn't bother converting existing tests, although I assume they will become useful elsewhere in time. Both gqlgen and testify are of course only used in tests. Fixes #21 and #24. Issue: #21 Issue: #24 ## Test plan: make check Author: benjaminjkraft Reviewers: aberkan, dnerdy, benjaminjkraft, csilvers, MiguelCastillo Required Reviewers: Approved by: aberkan, dnerdy Checks: ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint Pull request URL: #50
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
They don't need to be super detailed -- there's not a lot of code -- but we should really have something!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: