Isolated Entity Tests #2612
Isolated Entity Tests #2612
Conversation
* update durability provider class for new core-entities support. * add configuration setting for max entity concurrency to DurableTaskOptions * minor fixes.
* update DurableClient to take advantage of native entity queries if available * fix minor errors. * address PR feedback
* implement passthrough middleware for entities. * propagate changes to protocol * update/simplify protobuf format * address PR feedback
* implement entity queries for grpc listener * propagate changes to protocol * update/simplify protobuf format
* durability provider must implement and pass-through IEntityOrchestrationService since it wraps the orchestration service * simple mistake * fix misunderstanding of initializer syntax (produced null, not empty list) * fix missing failure details * fix missing compile-time switch for trigger value type * fix missing optional arguments * fix missing override
* add an entity example to the DotNetIsolated smoke test project. * remove superfluous argument. * address PR feedback
* Add worker side entity trigger and logic * update comments * Address PR comments
sebastianburckhardt
added
core-entities
sebastianburckhardt
force-pushed
the
core-entities/isolated-tests
branch
from
b3cd8f2
to
9f4cb5b
Compare
* assign the necessary AzureStorageOrchestrationServiceSettings * propagate changes to query name and metadata parameters * add missing override for TaskOrchestrationEntityFeature
* add configuration for EnableEntitySupport * rename includeStateless to includeTransient
| { | ||
| public static async Task<string> RunAsync(TestContext context, string? filter = null, bool listOnly = false) | ||
| { | ||
| var sb = new StringBuilder(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: I would suggest to fully write out builder or stringBuilder here. I realize sb is a common shorthand here, but I think we usually try to avoid shorthands in this codebase.
|
|
||
| internal static class TestRunner | ||
| { | ||
| public static async Task<string> RunAsync(TestContext context, string? filter = null, bool listOnly = false) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit surprised that we're writing our own test runner. I'm not strictly against it (plus this is relatively simple) but why why aren't we scaffolding this with our usual testing framework?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It has to run inside a function app. I had no appetite for spending a lot of time figuring out how to get a unit testing framework running inside a function app. Also, my past experience with those frameworks is not great. Takes a lot to get them to do what you want, even if what you want is rather simple. As demonstrated with this little bit of code here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I am not sure we should be adding our own test runner. What I recommend is using xunit test fixtures. You can encapsulate starting the function app via this fixture and then author tests which pull in and start the fixture (this starting the function app), and then dispatch HTTP to the function app to run a given scenario.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understand what you are suggesting, we would additionally create a separate xunit test for each test and then have that test invoke the app's unit test via http call?
Would that be a separate project (given that the function app is a special kind of project)? Would there be any way to avoid having to redefine all tests in both projects?
| }, | ||
| "extensions": { | ||
| "durableTask": { | ||
| "entityMessageReorderWindowInMinutes": 0 // need this just for testing the CleanEntityStorage |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does JSON parsing in .NET work with inlined comments?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose it depend on what parser is used. Has worked for me without issues for host.json.
| int state = await context.WaitForEntityStateAsync<int>(entityId); | ||
| Assert.Equal(1, state); | ||
|
|
||
| // entity still exists |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this be: "entity now exists"? Instead of 'still exists'? It did not exist before, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah it is a bit misleading. Rewording.
…ions are called on a backend that does not support entities (#2630)
|
We do not need this branch to be merged for the preview but it should be merged, and run in CI, before GA. |
# Conflicts: # release_notes.md # src/WebJobs.Extensions.DurableTask/ContextImplementations/DurableClient.cs # src/WebJobs.Extensions.DurableTask/WebJobs.Extensions.DurableTask.csproj # src/Worker.Extensions.DurableTask/AssemblyInfo.cs # src/Worker.Extensions.DurableTask/Worker.Extensions.DurableTask.csproj # test/SmokeTests/OOProcSmokeTests/DotNetIsolated/DotNetIsolated.csproj
…are testing whether the input is propagated
sebastianburckhardt
changed the base branch from
feature/core-entities
to
dev
|
I added two more tests that are not entity-related, but that can help us test and document the failure propagation for activities and suborchestrators. |
…ner exceptions), and similarly for activity and orchestration error checking.
Adds a separate function app for running entity tests.
The tests can be run (individually or all together) using http triggers.
Pull request checklist
PR checklist is tracked by feature branch.