Add integration tests for package dependencies #1144
Conversation
- Verify various contract calls with spm - Exercises use local version workflow Issue: swiftlang#1052
michael-weng
requested review from
adam-fowler,
0xTim and
award999
as code owners
| expect(output).to.include("required"); | ||
|
|
||
| // Contract: spm reset, resolve, update should work | ||
| const executeTaskSpy = sinon.spy(utilities, "executeTaskWithUI"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this test gets into needing some intimate knowledge of the implementation for spying / mocking. If this is tied to a command, we should execute the command. Instead of mocking the user selection, you can let the command take a parameter and pass that parameter when running executeCommand
| test("Use local dependency", async () => { | ||
| // Expect to fail without setting up local version | ||
| const tasks = (await getBuildAllTask(folderContext)) as SwiftTask; | ||
| let { exitCode, output } = await executeTaskAndWaitForResult(tasks); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably could move this to a setup hook so it is separate from test purpose
| const updateWorkspaceSpy = sinon.spy(vscode.workspace, "updateWorkspaceFolders"); | ||
| // We would love to call uneditDependency for coverage but there's no clean way to get | ||
| // a synchronize point for deterministic task completion so just call this function direct | ||
| await uneditFolderDependency(workspaceContext.currentFolder!, id, workspaceContext); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"full workflow", i.e. multiple paths and actions, is more smoke level. Find to group a feature in a suite, but > let's make sure each test case is one path.
This is sort of what I meant. I'm not quite sure what we're testing here. We're checking exit codes above, further actions and assertions in subsequent steps. Ideally 1 action, 1 result, 1 set of assertion(s) on that result for each test case
| expect(file).to.not.be.undefined; | ||
|
|
||
| expect(file?.path).to.equal(`${path}/Sources/CAtomic/CAtomic.c`); | ||
| suite("Full work flow tests", function () { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"full workflow", i.e. multiple paths and actions, is more smoke level. Find to group a feature in a suite, but let's make sure each test case is one path.
| // FIXME: Can be changed back to Swift-Markdown when | ||
| // https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-package-manager/issues/7931 | ||
| // is released in the toolchain | ||
| name: "swift-markdown", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this arbitrary or must it be "swift-markdown" because we want it to overshadow the remote dependency? If the latter, should have a comment "needs to be swift-markdown for .... test to verify ...."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are right this is not arbitrary, I will add comment to make this more obvious.
Issue: #1052