Subject: [pgadmin4][patch] Use pytest test runner for unit tests

From: Anthony Emengo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 17:48:45 -0400

Hey all,

Attached is a rather large patch that attempts to introduce the Pytest test
runner and Grappah test matcher into our code base. The patch replaces all
of the previous python unit tests from the previous design. This is a
follow-up from our previous proof of concept and discussion around the
idiosyncrasies of our existing test suite.

We are motivated to submit this change for the following reasons:

1. Having a highly customized test suite increases the learning curve
towards contributing to the code base. Pytest is a mature stable python
test framework that outside developers are more likely to be familiar with.
2. Pytest supports a lot of the features that we've built for our use-cases
- out of the box, and with extensive documentation on the matter.
3. The lack of ability to run tests individually has become a pain point.
Especially when it comes to debugging long running feature tests.

Test can be ran with the following command:

yarn test:unit

​
Please let us know what you think and if there are any issues!

*Note: *The feature tests are not yet completed. We expect our CI to fail
as a result of this patch. We will complete this step soon in a follow-up
patch!

https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/
https://github.com/grappa-py/grappa

Thanks,
Anthony && Joao && Victoria

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:05:16 +0100

Hi

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:48 PM, Anthony Emengo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Attached is a rather large patch that attempts to introduce the Pytest
> test runner and Grappah test matcher into our code base. The patch replaces
> all of the previous python unit tests from the previous design. This is a
> 2. Pytest supports a lot of the features that we've built for our
> use-cases - out of the box, and with extensive documentation on the matter.

(pgadmin4) piranha:web dpage$ yarn test:unit

yarn run v1.3.2

$ yarn run linter && pytest -q pgadmin

$ yarn eslint --no-eslintrc -c .eslintrc.js --ext .js --ext .jsx .

$ /Users/dpage/git/pgadmin4/web/node_modules/.bin/eslint --no-eslintrc -c
.eslintrc.js --ext .js --ext .jsx .

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File
"/Users/dpage/.virtualenvs/pgadmin4/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_pytest/config.py",
line 371, in _importconftest

    mod = conftestpath.pyimport()

  File
"/Users/dpage/.virtualenvs/pgadmin4/lib/python2.7/site-packages/py/_path/local.py",
line 668, in pyimport

    __import__(modname)

  File "/Users/dpage/git/pgadmin4/web/pgadmin/__init__.py", line 29, in
<module>

    from pgadmin.model import db, Role, Server, ServerGroup, \

ImportError: No module named pgadmin.model

ERROR: could not load /Users/dpage/git/pgadmin4/web/pgadmin/conftest.py

error Command failed with exit code 4.

info Visit https://yarnpkg.com/en/docs/cli/run for documentation about this
command.

> https://github.com/grappa-py/grappa

 Please don't forget to update the README and top level Makefile as well!
I'll probably have to tweak my Windows CI jobs, but the Linux/Mac ones all
use the Makefile (which is also hard-coded into my fingers)!

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

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

---

From: Anthony Emengo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 12:14:47 -0400

Here’s a followup patch with the relevant README and Makefile changes. To
be clear, both patches need to be applied in succession to run the tests.

The error that you were running into was because the appropriate PYTHONPATH
environment variable was not set. We updated the README to reflect that,
but haven’t done anything to the code for that

Thanks
Joao && Anthony
​

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 17:24:17 +0100

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Anthony Emengo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The error that you were running into was because the appropriate
> PYTHONPATH environment variable was not set. We updated the README to
> reflect that, but haven’t done anything to the code for that
>
That really needs to be fixed then. I shouldn't need to do anything beyond
activate the appropriate virtual environment (which I had done).

---

From: Joao De Almeida Pereira <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:36:37 -0400

As part of the development environment we do not see the reasoning behind
not add PYTHONPATH to the environment variables, specially because this
looks like the way pytest was invisoned.

However please try the following patch instead. We've changed the pytest
invocation to assume the relevant dir as part of the directories to load,
as well as the docs and Makefile

Thanks
Joao && Anthony

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 10:31:19 +0100

Hi

> looks like the way pytest was invisoned.

Really? It's one more step that wasn't previously required, and for which
there is no good reason when running in a properly configured virtual
environment. Not only that, but PYTHONPATH is typically used as a search
path to find modules on which the application/script is dependent - not to
find the application/script itself. Unconditionally overriding it is likely
to lead to problems in some possible configurations (at the very least I
would expect to see the Makefile do PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:$(PWD)/web).

> as well as the docs and Makefile

Some initial feedback:

- The JSON results are no longer being generated.

- The output is *extremely* verbose, showing a lot of seemingly unnecessary
info (do we really need to output the source code of failing test cases?). I
would suggest that the verbose output be directed to the log, and the
visible output should be much more terse along the lines of what it is now.

- There is no summary at the end showing what passed, failed or was
skipped. To figure out what to look at, I have to trawl through over 13K
lines of output (642KB).

- 69 tests failed for me running test:unit. They were previously all
passing.

- It is a *lot* faster - not sure if that's a result of tests failing, but
I expect not entirely.

- /README was updated, but not /web/regression/README

Thanks.

---

From: Joao De Almeida Pereira <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 07:35:53 -0400

Hello Dave

> would expect to see the Makefile do PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:$(PWD)/web).
Good point we didn't consider the possibility of someone developing
multiple python apps in the same machine.
We will revisit this and start using
python -m pytest
as that should solve the problem

> - The JSON results are no longer being generated.

That is a flag that we didn't add to the script bug we will review the
patch with that

> - The output is *extremely* verbose, showing a lot of seemingly
> unnecessary info (do we really need to output the source code of failing
> test cases?). I would suggest that the verbose output be directed to the
> log, and the visible output should be much more terse along the lines of
> what it is now.
>

We can see what we can do about this point

> skipped. To figure out what to look at, I have to trawl through over 13K

If we use the flag -q the output is smaller. We can add that too

> - 69 tests failed for me running test:unit. They were previously all

Can you provide some log of the failing tests?

> - /README was updated, but not /web/regression/README

Out lapse, will do that

Joao

---

From: Joao De Almeida Pereira <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 16:52:32 -0400

Hello Hackers,
We have good news, we just finished porting all the tests to pytest/grappa.
Please see the attached diff with the multiple commits for this. Bare with
us in this HUGE patch. We split it as follow:

0001 - Convert all the Unit Tests to pytest/grappa(Patch previously sent,
with some tests that were not running previously
0002 - Change of README, makefile and package.json to use the new syntax
0003 - Convert all the Feature Tests to pytest/grappa

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 22:07:18 -0400

Hi

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello Hackers,
> We have good news, we just finished porting all the tests to
> pytest/grappa. Please see the attached diff with the multiple commits for
> this. Bare with us in this HUGE patch. We split it as follow:
>
> From now on, we can launch 1 test at a time if we want to by using pytest.
> (In this gist https://gist.github.com/kwmiebach/3fd49612ef7a52b5ce3a
> there are some examples on how to use it) Because we are using the pytest
> CLI all the options are made available to use, the community also as a ton
> of plugins if we ever need something else.
>
> We updated all README’s with the following information as well.
>
> As we discussed previously in order to use the pytest binary directly you
> need to point the PYTHONPATH to $PGADMIN_SRC/web
> If you do not want to do that then you can use it like this web $ python
> -m pytest -q -s pgadmin
>
> We also changed the feature test, they now are under
> regression/feature_tests as they do no longer need to be in the
> application path in order to run.
> To address the password issue we added to the makefile
>
> python -m pytest --tb=short -q --json=regression/test_result.json --log-file-level=DEBUG --log-file=regression/regression.log pgadmin
>
> the --tb=short options is the one responsible for removing a chunk of the
> traceback, making it smaller and hiding the variable printing
>
> Known issues:
>
>    - Python 2.7, the library we are using for assertions (Grappa) is
>    failing while trying to assert on strings. We created a PR to the library:
>    https://github.com/grappa-py/grappa/pull/43
>    <https://github.com/grappa-py/grappa/pull/43> as soon as this gets in
>    all the tests should pass
>
> Any guesses as to the ETA? Given that most of our dev, and our Windows and
Mac packages both run on 2.7 at the moment, it's clear that this is a
required fix before we can proceed.

>
>    - We found out that the tests in pgadmin/browser/tests where not
>    running because they needed SERVER_MODE to be True. We ported these tests
>    but 2 tests are still failing TestResetPassword.test_success and
>    TestChangePassword.test_success. They are currently failing for 2
>    different reasons, but when we went back to master branch they were
>    also failing. So we kept them with the mark xfail, this mark allow us
>    to run the tests and do not report the failure. You can read more one the
>    topic at (https://docs.pytest.org/en/3.6.0/skipping.html).
>    Unfortunately we were not able to correct the issues, if someone could look
>    into these test it would be great.
>
> My guess is that you ran them without having an MTA running on the test
machine.

>
>    - Jenkins server need a change. Because we now run tests for a single
>    database at a time the Jenkins flow need to change. Our proposal for this
>    is to isolate each database in its own task something similar to the
>    pipeline that we currently use internally:
>
> ​
>
>
> The boxes that we are pointing with the teal arrow represent 1 Python
> Version Against 1 Database. This can be accomplished using Jenkins as well.
> In order to accomplish that we are going to generate e Jenkinsfile(
> https://jenkins.io/doc/book/pipeline/jenkinsfile/) to do this in a more
> DSL manner, making it easier for us to deploy the pipeline in a more
> consistent way. The LTS version of jenkins is 2.107.3 the version that we
> have in CI should be ok, but is always good to be in a LTS version of
> Jenkins or newer because the community is pretty active.
> The idea would be to replace the 5 tasks that we have there and start
> using a pipeline that will spawn docker containers to isolate the testing
> between version/database. That is what we do with concourse as we depicted
> in the previous image.
> Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
>
Well the current public Jenkins system is going away soon, and the new one
has had a ton of jobs created that assume the tests run in series
automatically against each database server (and is completely different
from the current system). I do plan to change that in the longer term, but
it requires a change to the way I've been using (and know how to use)
Jenkins.

However, the bigger problem for me is that I often run the tests against
multiple DB servers on my laptop, without Jenkins. How would that workflow
look now?

---

From: Joao De Almeida Pereira <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:26:19 -0400

>>    https://github.com/grappa-py/grappa/pull/43 as soon as this gets in
>> Any guesses as to the ETA? Given that most of our dev, and our Windows
> and Mac packages both run on 2.7 at the moment, it's clear that this is a

Attached you can find the patch that bumps grappa to version 0.1.9 that
support Python 2.7

> it requires a change to the way I've been using (and know how to use)

 Do you have a link to the new CI that you can share with us so we can take
a pick. We can give some advises on what we believe it is a a good flow for
the Continuous Delivery pipeline.
We have some examples from our pipeline that we can share:
Script that we use to run the UT + Feature tests on a docker image that has
python+yarn+selenium+postgres installed on it:
https://github.com/greenplum-db/pgadmin4-ci/blob/master/tasks/run-postgres-tests/run.sh

This type of scripts can be added to the Jenkinsfile to create a pipeline
step. A good practice in a reproducible pipeline is to use Docker to ensure
that every test runs in a clean and predictable environment, this make it
easy to reproduce a problem found in testing.

> multiple DB servers on my laptop, without Jenkins. How would that workflow
We understand that and it looks like an interesting use case and it could
be accomplished by creating a script of something similar that launch the
tests multiple times. That is something that we can schedule as a future
steps after this patch is reviewed and committed.

Thanks
Victoria & Joao

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:16:05 +0100

Hi

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>    <https://github.com/grappa-py/grappa/pull/43> as soon as this gets
>>>    in all the tests should pass
>>>

I'll take a look.

>
>>>    - Jenkins server need a change. Because we now run tests for a
>>>    single database at a time the Jenkins flow need to change. Our proposal for
>>>    this is to isolate each database in its own task something similar to the
>> Well the current public Jenkins system is going away soon, and the new
>> one has had a ton of jobs created that assume the tests run in series
>  Do you have a link to the new CI that you can share with us so we can
> take a pick. We can give some advises on what we believe it is a a good
> flow for the Continuous Delivery pipeline.
>

No, because it's firewalled to the nines inside our network. There's no
chance I'm making production build machines internet-accessible.

> Script that we use to run the UT + Feature tests on a docker image that
> has python+yarn+selenium+postgres installed on it:

Docker is of little use to us here, as 2 of the 4 build platforms cannot be
run in Docker (macOS and the Docker container), and the 3rd would be
extremely difficult to run that way (Windows)

> steps after this patch is reviewed and committed.

We don't commit patches that remove functionality that people use
regularly, even if it's only intended to be temporary - that's simply not
how we do things in the community, as the risk of the second part not being
done is too high.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:01:26 +0100

Hi

> Attached you can find the patch that bumps grappa to version 0.1.9 that

I thought I had replied to this, but apparently not. My apologies...

This does seem to fix the issues with Python 2.7. The remaining issues I
saw are:

- There are a handful of failures with PG 11, however that's not yet
supported and Khushboo is working on it. It shouldn't hold up this patch -
just mentioning for completeness.

- I get the following failure (which is easily fixed in the config file,
though that of course, shouldn't be necessary):

E   AssertionError: Oops! Something went wrong!

E

E     The following assertion was not satisfied

E       subject "/Library/PostgreSQL/ ..." should be equal to
"/Library/PostgreSQL/ ..."

E

E     What we expected

E       a value that is equal to "/Library/PostgreSQL/ ..."

E

E     What we got instead

E       an value of type "str" with data "/Library/PostgreSQL/ ..."

E

E     Difference comparison

E       > - /Library/PostgreSQL/tablespaces/9.4

E       > + /Library/PostgreSQL/tablespaces/9.4/

E       > ?                                    +

E

E     Where

E       File
"/Users/dpage/git/pgadmin4/web/pgadmin/browser/server_groups/servers/tablespaces/tests/test_tbspc_get.py",
line 75, in test_tablespace_get

Thanks.

---

From: Victoria Henry <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:41:42 -0400

Hi Dave,

Attached are four different patches that should be applied in order.
Included is a fix for the failing test above.

Sincerely,

Victoria && Joao

---

From: Victoria Henry <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:39:09 -0400

Hi Dave,

> chance I'm making production build machines internet-accessible.

For a Open Source project, if the community cannot see the place where the
tests are running it looses a huge part of the process. We believe that
removing this capability will have a negative impact on the development,
especially because we do not have a CI/CD.  Before the code is merged we
will never know if master is broken or not.

> Docker is of little use to us here, as 2 of the 4 build platforms cannot
> be run in Docker (macOS and the Docker container), and the 3rd would be

The docker files that we are talking about here is to run the tests, and we
believe that the tests are all running in a Linux environment.

Thanks
Victoria && Joao

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:56:00 +0100

Hi

> will never know if master is broken or not.

This is one of multiple CI/CD systems; specifically it's the one that will
be producing our official builds. Security always trumps developer
convenience for build machines as far as I'm concerned - have you ever had
to deal with a possibly-compromised build server and the PR fallout etc
that can result from that?

The existing public system will be replaced with one that mirrors a portion
of the build system; specifically, the test jobs, but not the production
build jobs or dependencies. It may be removed completely in the future if I
can find a way to securely allow access to build info from the build system.

>>> This type of scripts can be added to the Jenkinsfile to create a
>>> pipeline step. A good practice in a reproducible pipeline is to use Docker
>>> to ensure that every test runs in a clean and predictable environment, this
>>> make it easy to reproduce a problem found in testing.
>>>
>>
> The docker files that we are talking about here is to run the tests, and
> we believe that the tests are all running in a Linux environment.
>

No, I'm running tests on all platforms. We've proven numerous times that
just running them on Linux is not enough.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:37:48 +0100

Hi

> Included is a fix for the failing test above.

This is no longer failing :-)

However, I'm still seeing problems that need to be resolved:

- Passwords are still being written to the log file. This is a complete
show-stopper.

- The regression.log file is empty. I'm now only getting the JSON summary.
We really need both - the regression log for diagnostics, and the JSON file
for feeding into monitoring systems.

- There is still no summary list of tests that failed or were skipped
output at the end of the run. This is important because it highlights which
tests failed (obviously!) and need investigation, and knowing which ones
are skipped at a glance is very useful as they can be skipped due to
mis-configuration; e.g. running against a different server than intended,
or failing to specify something like a tablespace path which we can then
easily see to fix.

- I cannot run against servers other than the first one in the config file.
We need to run against all that are enabled, and have the output show which
one was used for each one as we have now. This may seem trivial, but it's
really not - to the point that for some of us it negates the whole point of
the patch by giving us more control over which tests are run but removing
all control over which database servers they will run against. In my case,
this will almost certainly cost even more time; right now I just have to
run more tests than I may need but I can do other things at the same time.
With this patch I'll have to keep re-running the tests, modifying the
config between each run.

Thanks.

---

From: Khushboo Vashi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:13:30 +0530

Hi,

The supported versions of
Pytest: Python 2.7, Python 3.4+, PyPy 2.3, Jython 2.5 (untested);
Grappa: Python 2.7+, 3+

References:

So, how are we going to handle unsupported versions (PY 2.6 and 3.3) ?

Thanks,
Khushboo

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Dave Page <[email-masked]> wrote:

> - I cannot run against servers other than the first one in the config
> file. We need to run against all that are enabled, and have the output show
> which one was used for each one as we have now. This may seem trivial, but
> it's really not - to the point that for some of us it negates the whole
> point of the patch by giving us more control over which tests are run but
> removing all control over which database servers they will run against. In
> my case, this will almost certainly cost even more time; right now I just
> have to run more tests than I may need but I can do other things at the
> same time. With this patch I'll have to keep re-running the tests,
> modifying the config between each run.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dave Page