I am making some integration tests for an app, testing routes that modify the database. So far, I have added some code to my tests to delete all the changes I have made to the DB because I don't want to change it, but it adds a lot of work and doesn't sounds right. I then thought about copying the database, testing, deleting the database in my testing script. The problem with that is that it is too long to do. Is there a method for doing that ?
I see two possible ways to solve your problem:
In-memory database e.g. (h2)
Database in docker container.
Both approaches solve your problem, you can just shutdown db/container and run it again, db will be clean in that case and you don't have to care about it. Just run new one. However there are some peculiarities:
In-memory is easier to implement and use, but it may have problems with dialects, e.g. some oracle sql commands are not available for H2. And eventually you are running your tests on different DB
Docker container with db is harder to plugin into your build and tests, but it doesn't have embeded DB problems with dialects and DB in docker is the same as your real one.
You can start a database transaction at the beginning of a test and then roll it back. See the following post for details:
https://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2012/10/18/isolating-database-data-in-integration-tests/
Related
We are using Redisco for our models, and I am writing some tests for our models, however redis keeps filling up, so for each test, more data is added to reddis.
Is there a way to clear Redis for each test, and what are the best practices when testing (using redis and redisco)
- EDIT -
This is the solution I went with in the end, and I want to share this with others who might have the same question
To make sure each test case is running on a clean Redis instance, start each test case by running
redis = Redis()
redis.flushall()
As people have commented below, make sure you don't run the tests against a production instance of Redis
I would recommend running a second redis instance for testing (eg. on a different port...) so you are also not able to accidentally drop any production data from your redis when running tests.
You could then use custom BaseTestClass which overrides your project's settings (in the setUp method - you can also emtpy your redis' dbs there) so that they point to another redis instance (hopefully you've defined your redis connections in your project's settings) and have all your test classes inherit from this base class.
The standard way of dealing with side-effects such as connecting to a database in unit tests is to provide a mock implementation of the data layer during the test. This can be done in many ways, you could use a different redis instance, or dynamically override methods to report to your test rather than actually manipulating the database etc.
Dependancy Injection is a pattern used for this kind of problem, more often in static languages like Java, but there are tools for Python, see http://code.google.com/p/snake-guice/
Our database is a postgresql. We use the JPA to manage our persistence tasks. Currently, our tests require the presence of a postgres server in order to execute. This makes our running our tests on a dev box as hassle, because the dev has to first install a postgres server, and it makes portability to various build server environments, from CI to our release build environment, difficult.
It seems to me that I should be able to switch out the heavy weight db server for a lightweight in memory version. We dont do any postgres specific things. Our code is mostly pure JPA with a touch of hibernate specific functionality accessed.
You can dependency inject your database into code you need to unit test. If your code already has dependencies on postgressql that are hard to inject you can use PowerMock to replace any static or constructor methods you call to return fakes that you control.
The fake database you return can be as simple as a hashtable with preset values depending on what you need to test.
you have two possibilities. you can set up separated postgres database and make your CI code connect to it. however, often it is not necessary. if your database code doesn't use very postgres specific features, think about using other, in-memory database. eg. h2 or hsqldb. you can even change your code a bit to make it more portable, if needed. the second option is of course a bit more risky, as there is always a chance that your code will work on in-memory db but not on postgres. the first option however may require a bit more administration and maintenance.
I want to test my database as part of a set of integration tests. I've got all my code unit tested against mocks etc for speed but I need to make sure all the stored procedures and code is working as it should when persisting. I did some Googling yesterday and found a nice article here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163772.aspx but it seemed a little old. I wondered if there is any current 'better' way of clearing out the database, restoring to an expected state or rolling back ready for each test? I'm coding in c#4, mvc3 using sql 2008.
We are using DbUnit to set up and/or tear down the database between tests as well as to assert database state during test.
It's stupid-simple, so it may not be exactly what you need, but what I've done is keep a backup of the database at a given sane state - usually what the current production database is it. Then, for each build we restore that database (using Jenkins, NANT and SQLCMD), apply the current builds update scripts and run our test suite. This has the advantage of both giving you a database that is a 'known quantity' and it verifies that your upgrade scripting is working.
Running Django unit tests is far too slow. Especially when I just want to run one test but the test runner wants to create the entire database and destroy the whole thing just for that one test.
In the case where I have not changed any of my models, I could save oodles of time if Django would not bother trying to create and destroy the entire database, and instead saved it for next time. Better yet, it would be great if the test runner was capable of being able to see which models have changed and only replacing those prior to running tests.
I'd prefer to not have to subclass the test runner myself, but that's what I'm going to have to do if I don't find a solution soon. is there anything like this already in existence?
In django1.8 added new parameter for manage.py test command --keepdb
./manage.py test --keepdb
Have you tried using an in-memory SQLite database for tests? It's much faster than using a disk-based database.
I'm using Djang-nose. If you set a env var REUSE_DB=1 it will not destroy the DB after running tests and re-use that same DB for the next run. Whenever your schema changes, just set REUSE_DB=0 and do one 'full' run. After that reset it to 1 and you're good to go.
https://github.com/django-nose/django-nose
Overview
I'm building a website in django. I need to allow people to begin to add flatpages, and set some settings in the admin. These changes should be definitive, since that information comes from the client. However, I'm also developing the backend, and as such will am creating and migrating tables. I push these changes to the hub.
Tools
django
git
south
postgres
Problem
How can I ensure that I get the database changes from the online site down to me on my lappy, and also how can I push my database changes up to the live site, so that we have a minimum of co-ordination needed? I am familiar with git hooks, so that option is in play.
Addendum:
I guess I know which tables can be modified via the admin. There should not be much overlap really. As I consider further, the danger really is me pushing data that would overwrite something they have done.
Thanks.
For getting your schema changes up to the server, just use South carefully. If you modify any table they might have data in, make sure you write both a schema migration and as necessary a data migration to preserve the sense of their data.
For getting their updated data back down to you (which doesn't seem critical, but might be nice to work with up-to-date test data as you're developing), I generally just use Django fixtures and the dumpdata and loaddata commands. It's easy enough to dump a fixture and commit it to your repo, then a loaddata on your end.
You could try using git hooks to automate some of this, but if you want automation I do recommend trying something like Fabric instead. Much of this stuff doesn't need to be run every single time you push/pull (in particular, I usually wouldn't want to dump a new data fixture that frequently).
You should probably take a look at South:
http://south.aeracode.org/
It seems to me that you could probably create a git hook that triggers off South if you are doing some sort of continuous integration system.
Otherwise, every time you do a push you will have to manually execute the migration steps yourself. Don't forget to put up the "site is under maintenance" message. ;)
I recommend that you use mk-table-sync to pull changes from live server to your laptop.
mk-table-sync takes a lot of parameters so you can automate this process by using fabric. You would basically create a fabric function that executes mk-table-sync on each tablet that you want to pull from the server.
This means that you can not make dabatase changes yourself, because they will be overwritten by the pull.
The only changes that you would be making to the live database are using South. You would push the code to the server and then run migrate to update the database schema.