openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Let's maintain and test our Swagger spec
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2018 04:55:02 GMT
Ben, you might want to take note of this PR https://github.com/apache/
incubator-openwhisk/pull/3840
which removes a number of tests suites (redundant with unit tests). Also
I've found that the WskRestOperations implementation in some places fixes
behaviors to match the CLI instead of strictly implementing the
narrower/strict REST interface. This may mean you have to edit tests (or
remove some that are only valid for clients).

-r

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:20 PM, Ben Browning <bbrownin@redhat.com> wrote:

> After several failed attempts, I have an approach that I believe will
> work well enough for our needs. I pushed some in-progress code and
> swagger spec fixes to a branch on a fork just so the general approach
> can be shared -
> https://github.com/projectodd/incubator-openwhisk/commit/5ad
> b6be27188dcdc5b9519b57c11802a431b3e9c
>
> This approach uses the swagger-request-validator Java library. I'm
> wiring that up to validate all requests and responses from the
> WskRest* tests transparently, which you can see in
> https://github.com/projectodd/incubator-openwhisk/commit/5ad
> b6be27188dcdc5b9519b57c11802a431b3e9c#diff-5e514c6c3c27b9210
> d85a08d4ed3ed35
> (with some cruft and debug output that I'll clean up before submitting
> a PR)
>
> This means that almost all of those tests are now failing due to
> failed swagger spec validations. For now I'm going to concentrate on
> making the spec match the reality and try to get all the existing
> tests green with the validation in place and submit a PR. After that,
> we can patch up any known but uncaught holes by increasing the test
> coverage.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks Ben for the quick update on this task
> >
> > -cs
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:15 PM Ben Browning <bbrownin@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> After doing some preliminary poking at this, I believe we'll want to
> >> use either a tool like https://github.com/google/oatts to generate a
> >> test suite from our Swagger spec OR use swagger-codegen to generate a
> >> Scala client from our Swagger spec and try to plug that into the
> >> existing WskRest tests.
> >>
> >> Using the oatts tool doesn't really fit well with the test setup in
> >> the existing incubator-openwhisk repo (where the API spec lives)
> >> because that generates Node.js tests.
> >>
> >> So, I'm leaning towards the second option, which is wiring in
> >> generation of a Scala client into the gradle build and having the
> >> current WskRest test client use this generated Scala client for
> >> testing instead of directly invoking URLs.
> >>
> >> However, last time I played with Scala code generated from Swagger
> >> specs it wasn't that usable. So, a bit more experimentation will
> >> validate whether this option is viable or if other alternatives need
> >> to be considered. I already have a handful of bugs in the API spec
> >> that need to be fixed but I'm waiting to fix and push those until I
> >> can get some kind of testing wired up to reproduce the bugs and verify
> >> the fix.
> >>
> >> Ben
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Thanks Ben for looking into this, having a good API doc/spec and
> matching
> >> > tests is very need it.
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > -cs
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:25 PM Ben Browning <bbrownin@redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Our Swagger spec
> >> >> (
> >> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/blob/92a64c291
> 156a2cd3d6b304babc2a193a46d0699/core/controller/src/main/
> resources/apiv1swagger.json
> >> >> )
> >> >> is incomplete and doesn't accurately reflect the actual Controller
> >> >> API. It's manually updated without a full test suite which means it's
> >> >> easy for changes in the API to happen without the spec getting
> >> >> updated.
> >> >>
> >> >> An accurate Swagger spec will not only better document the OpenWhisk
> >> >> API but also allow autogenerated clients in multiple languages to
> >> >> supplement or eventually replace some of the existing client
> >> >> implementations we have today. It also paves way for future
> compatible
> >> >> server implementations, whether they be rewrites of the existing
> >> >> Controller or stub test harnesses to facilitate end-to-end testing
on
> >> >> a developer's laptop.
> >> >>
> >> >> As I'm already working with autogenerating code from the Swagger spec
> >> >> for other purposes, I'm happy to take the lead on this effort. I'd
> >> >> like to take a two-pronged approach for a test suite:
> >> >>
> >> >> * Generate a server stub from the spec and ensure the wsk CLI can
> >> >> communicate with it.
> >> >>
> >> >> * Generate a client stub from the spec and ensure it can communicate
> >> >> with the existing API.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are a lot of details to figure out from those two statements.
> >> >> And, this approach won't guarantee 100% correctness of the spec. The
> >> >> only way to do that would be to generate all supported clients and
> the
> >> >> Controller API from the spec. But, this should get us started in the
> >> >> right direction.
> >> >>
> >> >> If anyone's gone down this path before and has some wisdom to share,
> >> >> please speak up!
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Ben
> >> >>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message