Re: pgAdmin IV API test cases patch - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers

Hi

The test data was the default, and I ran against PG 9.4. All other logs were attached to my previous email.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK:http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:16, Priyanka Shendge <priyanka.shendge@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Hi Dave,

I am unable to reproduce issue on my side; tried on Python 2.7 and Python 3.4.

Could you please provide me DEBUG logs and test data using for database node? 

Thank you.

On 30 June 2016 at 00:51, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

Hi,

That's better. I tweaked a few things and fixed a bug related to
recent changes to the schema version config. Patch attached.

However, there are still issues:

1) The testsuite doesn't run to completion. See the attached
stdout.txt and logger.txt files.
2) stdout should only display the test summary - what tests are
currently running (and pass/fail), and a summary at the end - even if
there's a crash like I saw.
3) The output log file should contain the full output, including
what's sent to stdout.
4) The output advises the user to check ".../pgadmin4/web/regression".
This should be in the summary at the end, and should be corrected to
show the correct (full) path.

Thanks.


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Priyanka Shendge

<priyanka.shendge@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> As per discussion over mail i have created separate config files for
> credentials and test data.
>
> PFA patch for same. Kindly, review and let me know for modifications.
>
> On 27 June 2016 at 15:10, Priyanka Shendge
> <priyanka.shendge@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27 June 2016 at 13:24, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Priyanka Shendge
>>> <priyanka.shendge@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 24 June 2016 at 16:17, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Priyanka Shendge
>>> >> <priyanka.shendge@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 15 June 2016 at 15:05, Priyanka Shendge
>>> >> > <priyanka.shendge@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thanks a lot Dave.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 15 June 2016 at 14:09, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Hi
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Priyanka Shendge
>>> >> >>> <priyanka.shendge@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> > Hi Dave,
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > PFA updated patch. I have made changes suggested by you.
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > Kindly, review and let me know for more changes.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> OK, I got a bit further this time, but not there yet.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> 1) The patch overwrote my test_config.json file. That should never
>>> >> >>> happen (that file shouldn't be in the source tree).
>>> >> >>> test_config.json.in should be the file that's included in the
>>> >> >>> patch.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> OK.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> 2) The updated test_config.json file is huge.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Current configuration file web/regression/test_config.json contains
>>> >> > test
>>> >> > data(credentials) for each tree node;
>>> >> > which is used while adding and updating the respective node.
>>> >>
>>> >> Why would we need that?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Each node file (e.g. test_db_add.py and test_db_put.py) uses respective
>>> > credentials test data  from
>>> > test_config.json while execution.
>>>
>>> That doesn't answer my question - why do we need separate credentials
>>> for each node?
>>
>>
>> Sorry for typo, its test data not credentials.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> We should have just one set of credentials for
>>> >> everything.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Let me know if my understanding is clear:
>>> >
>>> > Should i keep basic credentials of each node (database, schema) into
>>> > test_config.json
>>> > instead  taking care of each field?
>>>
>>> You should have one set of credentials that's used for the entire test
>>> run.
>>
>>
>> Sure.  I'll separate the credentials and test data into 2 different files.
>> So, a normal user can run the tests into one go after some minor
>> credentials changes.
>> And an advanced user can have an option to change the test data if he
>> wants.
>>>
>>>
>>> >> >>> I should only need to
>>> >> >>> define one or more connections, then be able to run the tests. If
>>> >> >>> you
>>> >> >>> need to keep configuration info for "advanced users", let's put it
>>> >> >>> in
>>> >> >>> a different file to avoid confusing/scaring everyone else. Maybe
>>> >> >>> split
>>> >> >>> it into config.json for the stuff the user needs to edit
>>> >> >>> (config.json.in would go in git), and test_config.json for the
>>> >> >>> test
>>> >> >>> configuration.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Should i keep login and server credentials into
>>> >> > web/regression/test_config.json file and
>>> >> > put respective node details into config.json file of respective
>>> >> > node's
>>> >> > tests
>>> >> > directory?
>>> >>
>>> >> Not if you expect users to need to edit them - and if not, why are the
>>> >> values not just hard-coded?
>>> >>
>>> >> > e.g. for database node:
>>> >> > I'll create config.json file into .../databases/tests/ directory
>>> >> > put database add and update credentials into config.json
>>> >>
>>> >> The key here is to make it simple for users.
>>> >>
>>> >> - To run the default tests, they should be able to copy/edit a simple
>>> >> file, and just add database server details for the server to run
>>> >> against.
>>> >>
>>> >> - If we have configurable tests (because making them configurable adds
>>> >> genuine value), then we can use an "advanced" config file to allow the
>>> >> user to adjust settings as they want.
>>> >>
>>> >> In the simple case, the user should be able to run the tests
>>> >> successfully within a minute or two from starting.
>>> >>
>>> >> In designing the layout for files etc, remember the following:
>>> >>
>>> >> - Users should never edit a file that is in our source control. That's
>>> >> why we have .in files that we expect them to copy.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Unless they're an advanced user, they shouldn't need to copy the
>>> >> config file for advanced options. That means that the tests should
>>> >> have defaults that match what is in the template advanced config file
>>> >> (or, the tests could read advanced.json.in if advanced.json doesn't
>>> >> exist, though that does seem a little icky). Of course, those are
>>> >> example filenames, not necessarily what you may choose.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Dave Page
>>> >> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>> >> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>> >>
>>> >> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Best,
>>> > Priyanka
>>> >
>>> > EnterpriseDB Corporation
>>> > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Page
>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>
>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org)
>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best,
>> Priyanka
>>
>> EnterpriseDB Corporation
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Priyanka
>
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--

Best,

Priyanka

EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company