touch to test #1
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
krissetto
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
This makes a quick pass through our tests;
Discard output/err
----------------------------------------------
Many tests were testing for error-conditions, but didn't discard output.
This produced a lot of noise when running the tests, and made it hard
to discover if there were actual failures, or if the output was expected.
For example:
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors
Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
See 'create --help'.
Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]
Create a config from a file or STDIN
Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
See 'create --help'.
Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]
Create a config from a file or STDIN
Error: error creating config
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
And after discarding output:
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
Use sub-tests where possible
----------------------------------------------
Some tests were already set-up to use test-tables, and even had a usable
name (or in some cases "error" to check for). Change them to actual sub-
tests. Same test as above, but now with sub-tests and output discarded:
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config (0.00s)
PASS
It's not perfect in all cases (in the above, there's duplicate "expected"
errors, but Go conveniently adds "#1" for the duplicate). There's probably
also various tests I missed that could still use the same changes applied;
we can improve these in follow-ups.
Set cmd.Args to prevent test-failures
----------------------------------------------
When running tests from my IDE, it compiles the tests before running,
then executes the compiled binary to run the tests. Cobra doesn't like
that, because in that situation `os.Args` is taken as argument for the
command that's executed. The command that's tested now sees the test-
flags as arguments (`-test.v -test.run ..`), which causes various tests
to fail ("Command XYZ does not accept arguments").
# compile the tests:
go test -c -o foo.test
# execute the test:
./foo.test -test.v -test.run TestFoo
=== RUN TestFoo
Error: "foo" accepts no arguments.
The Cobra maintainers ran into the same situation, and for their own
use have added a special case to ignore `os.Args` in these cases;
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L1078-L1083
args := c.args
// Workaround FAIL with "go test -v" or "cobra.test -test.v", see docker#155
if c.args == nil && filepath.Base(os.Args[0]) != "cobra.test" {
args = os.Args[1:]
}
Unfortunately, that exception is too specific (only checks for `cobra.test`),
so doesn't automatically fix the issue for other test-binaries. They did
provide a `cmd.SetArgs()` utility for this purpose
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L276-L280
// SetArgs sets arguments for the command. It is set to os.Args[1:] by default, if desired, can be overridden
// particularly useful when testing.
func (c *Command) SetArgs(a []string) {
c.args = a
}
And the fix is to explicitly set the command's args to an empty slice to
prevent Cobra from falling back to using `os.Args[1:]` as arguments.
cmd := newSomeThingCommand()
cmd.SetArgs([]string{})
Some tests already take this issue into account, and I updated some tests
for this, but there's likely many other ones that can use the same treatment.
Perhaps the Cobra maintainers would accept a contribution to make their
condition less specific and to look for binaries ending with a `.test`
suffix (which is what compiled binaries usually are named as).
Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
krissetto
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2025
contains a fix for CVE-2024-45338 / https://go.dev/issue/70906, but it doesn't affect our codebase: govulncheck -show=verbose ./... Scanning your code and 1260 packages across 211 dependent modules for known vulnerabilities... ... Vulnerability #1: GO-2024-3333 Non-linear parsing of case-insensitive content in golang.org/x/net/html More info: https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-3333 Module: golang.org/x/net Found in: golang.org/x/[email protected] Fixed in: golang.org/x/[email protected] Your code is affected by 0 vulnerabilities. This scan also found 0 vulnerabilities in packages you import and 1 vulnerability in modules you require, but your code doesn't appear to call these vulnerabilities. full diff: golang/net@v0.32.0...v0.33.0 Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
krissetto
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2025
This makes a quick pass through our tests;
Discard output/err
----------------------------------------------
Many tests were testing for error-conditions, but didn't discard output.
This produced a lot of noise when running the tests, and made it hard
to discover if there were actual failures, or if the output was expected.
For example:
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors
Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
See 'create --help'.
Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]
Create a config from a file or STDIN
Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
See 'create --help'.
Usage: create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]
Create a config from a file or STDIN
Error: error creating config
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
And after discarding output:
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
Use sub-tests where possible
----------------------------------------------
Some tests were already set-up to use test-tables, and even had a usable
name (or in some cases "error" to check for). Change them to actual sub-
tests. Same test as above, but now with sub-tests and output discarded:
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01
=== RUN TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config (0.00s)
PASS
It's not perfect in all cases (in the above, there's duplicate "expected"
errors, but Go conveniently adds "#1" for the duplicate). There's probably
also various tests I missed that could still use the same changes applied;
we can improve these in follow-ups.
Set cmd.Args to prevent test-failures
----------------------------------------------
When running tests from my IDE, it compiles the tests before running,
then executes the compiled binary to run the tests. Cobra doesn't like
that, because in that situation `os.Args` is taken as argument for the
command that's executed. The command that's tested now sees the test-
flags as arguments (`-test.v -test.run ..`), which causes various tests
to fail ("Command XYZ does not accept arguments").
# compile the tests:
go test -c -o foo.test
# execute the test:
./foo.test -test.v -test.run TestFoo
=== RUN TestFoo
Error: "foo" accepts no arguments.
The Cobra maintainers ran into the same situation, and for their own
use have added a special case to ignore `os.Args` in these cases;
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L1078-L1083
args := c.args
// Workaround FAIL with "go test -v" or "cobra.test -test.v", see docker#155
if c.args == nil && filepath.Base(os.Args[0]) != "cobra.test" {
args = os.Args[1:]
}
Unfortunately, that exception is too specific (only checks for `cobra.test`),
so doesn't automatically fix the issue for other test-binaries. They did
provide a `cmd.SetArgs()` utility for this purpose
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L276-L280
// SetArgs sets arguments for the command. It is set to os.Args[1:] by default, if desired, can be overridden
// particularly useful when testing.
func (c *Command) SetArgs(a []string) {
c.args = a
}
And the fix is to explicitly set the command's args to an empty slice to
prevent Cobra from falling back to using `os.Args[1:]` as arguments.
cmd := newSomeThingCommand()
cmd.SetArgs([]string{})
Some tests already take this issue into account, and I updated some tests
for this, but there's likely many other ones that can use the same treatment.
Perhaps the Cobra maintainers would accept a contribution to make their
condition less specific and to look for binaries ending with a `.test`
suffix (which is what compiled binaries usually are named as).
Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
krissetto
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2025
contains a fix for CVE-2024-45338 / https://go.dev/issue/70906, but it doesn't affect our codebase: govulncheck -show=verbose ./... Scanning your code and 1260 packages across 211 dependent modules for known vulnerabilities... ... Vulnerability #1: GO-2024-3333 Non-linear parsing of case-insensitive content in golang.org/x/net/html More info: https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-3333 Module: golang.org/x/net Found in: golang.org/x/[email protected] Fixed in: golang.org/x/[email protected] Your code is affected by 0 vulnerabilities. This scan also found 0 vulnerabilities in packages you import and 1 vulnerability in modules you require, but your code doesn't appear to call these vulnerabilities. full diff: golang/net@v0.32.0...v0.33.0 Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
- What I did
- How I did it
- How to verify it
- Description for the changelog
- A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory but encouraged)