forked from elastic/kibana
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added unit test for server #2
Merged
cee-chen
merged 3 commits into
cee-chen:feature/enterprise-search-plugin
from
JasonStoltz:feature/enterprise-search-plugin
Apr 21, 2020
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
171 changes: 171 additions & 0 deletions
171
x-pack/plugins/enterprise_search/server/routes/app_search/engines.test.ts
This file contains 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ | ||
/* | ||
* Copyright Elasticsearch B.V. and/or licensed to Elasticsearch B.V. under one | ||
* or more contributor license agreements. Licensed under the Elastic License; | ||
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the Elastic License. | ||
*/ | ||
|
||
import { RequestHandlerContext } from 'kibana/server'; | ||
import { mockRouter, RouterMock } from 'src/core/server/http/router/router.mock'; | ||
import { httpServerMock } from 'src/core/server/http/http_server.mocks'; | ||
import { RouteValidatorConfig } from 'src/core/server/http/router/validator'; | ||
|
||
import { registerEnginesRoute } from './engines'; | ||
import { ObjectType } from '@kbn/config-schema'; | ||
|
||
jest.mock('node-fetch'); | ||
const fetch = jest.requireActual('node-fetch'); | ||
const { Response } = fetch; | ||
const fetchMock = require('node-fetch') as jest.Mocked<typeof fetch>; | ||
|
||
describe('engine routes', () => { | ||
describe('GET /api/app_search/engines', () => { | ||
const AUTH_HEADER = 'Basic 123'; | ||
let router: RouterMock; | ||
const mockResponseFactory = httpServerMock.createResponseFactory(); | ||
|
||
beforeEach(() => { | ||
jest.resetAllMocks(); | ||
router = mockRouter.create(); | ||
registerEnginesRoute({ | ||
router, | ||
config: { | ||
host: 'http://localhost:3002', | ||
}, | ||
}); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
describe('when the underlying App Search API returns a 200', () => { | ||
beforeEach(() => { | ||
AppSearchAPI.shouldBeCalledWith( | ||
`http://localhost:3002/as/engines/collection?type=indexed&page[current]=1&page[size]=10`, | ||
{ | ||
headers: { Authorization: AUTH_HEADER }, | ||
} | ||
).andReturn({ name: 'engine1' }); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
it('should return 200 with a list of engines from the App Search API', async () => { | ||
await callThisRoute(); | ||
|
||
expectResponseToBe200With({ | ||
body: { name: 'engine1' }, | ||
headers: { 'content-type': 'application/json' }, | ||
}); | ||
}); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
describe('when the underlying App Search API redirects to /login', () => { | ||
beforeEach(() => { | ||
AppSearchAPI.shouldBeCalledWith( | ||
`http://localhost:3002/as/engines/collection?type=indexed&page[current]=1&page[size]=10`, | ||
{ | ||
headers: { Authorization: AUTH_HEADER }, | ||
} | ||
).andReturnRedirect(); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
it('should return 200 with a message', async () => { | ||
await callThisRoute(); | ||
|
||
expectResponseToBe200With({ | ||
body: { message: 'no-as-account' }, | ||
headers: { 'content-type': 'application/json' }, | ||
}); | ||
}); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
describe('validation', () => { | ||
function itShouldValidate(request: { query: object }) { | ||
it('should be validated', async () => { | ||
expect(() => executeRouteValidation(request)).not.toThrow(); | ||
}); | ||
} | ||
|
||
function itShouldThrow(request: { query: object }) { | ||
it('should throw', async () => { | ||
expect(() => executeRouteValidation(request)).toThrow(); | ||
}); | ||
} | ||
|
||
describe('when query is valid', () => { | ||
const request = { query: { type: 'indexed', pageIndex: 1 } }; | ||
itShouldValidate(request); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
describe('pageIndex is wrong type', () => { | ||
const request = { query: { type: 'indexed', pageIndex: 'indexed' } }; | ||
itShouldThrow(request); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
describe('type is wrong type', () => { | ||
const request = { query: { type: 1, pageIndex: 1 } }; | ||
itShouldThrow(request); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
describe('pageIndex is missing', () => { | ||
const request = { query: { type: 'indexed' } }; | ||
itShouldThrow(request); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
describe('type is missing', () => { | ||
const request = { query: { pageIndex: 1 } }; | ||
itShouldThrow(request); | ||
}); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
const AppSearchAPI = { | ||
shouldBeCalledWith(expectedUrl: string, expectedParams: object) { | ||
return { | ||
andReturnRedirect() { | ||
fetchMock.mockImplementation((url: string, params: object) => { | ||
expect(url).toEqual(expectedUrl); | ||
expect(params).toEqual(expectedParams); | ||
|
||
return Promise.resolve( | ||
new Response('{}', { | ||
url: '/login', | ||
}) | ||
); | ||
}); | ||
}, | ||
andReturn(response: object) { | ||
fetchMock.mockImplementation((url: string, params: object) => { | ||
expect(url).toEqual(expectedUrl); | ||
expect(params).toEqual(expectedParams); | ||
|
||
return Promise.resolve(new Response(JSON.stringify(response))); | ||
}); | ||
}, | ||
}; | ||
}, | ||
}; | ||
|
||
const expectResponseToBe200With = (response: object) => { | ||
expect(mockResponseFactory.ok).toHaveBeenCalledWith(response); | ||
}; | ||
|
||
const callThisRoute = async ( | ||
request = { | ||
headers: { | ||
authorization: AUTH_HEADER, | ||
}, | ||
query: { | ||
type: 'indexed', | ||
pageIndex: 1, | ||
}, | ||
} | ||
) => { | ||
const [_, handler] = router.get.mock.calls[0]; | ||
|
||
const context = {} as jest.Mocked<RequestHandlerContext>; | ||
await handler(context, httpServerMock.createKibanaRequest(request), mockResponseFactory); | ||
}; | ||
|
||
const executeRouteValidation = (data: { query: object }) => { | ||
const [config] = router.get.mock.calls[0]; | ||
const validate = config.validate as RouteValidatorConfig<{}, {}, {}>; | ||
const query = validate.query as ObjectType; | ||
query.validate(data.query); | ||
}; | ||
}); | ||
}); |
This file contains 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking at this test, I'm actually wondering now if we should change line 16 in engines.ts to an enum of either
indexed
ormeta
strings, and write a test for that accordingly (200, 200, and error for a type of 'foobar' for example). Thoughts? Do you think the enum is more helpful?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My instinct is that it's unnecessary, since it's mainly just an internal endpoint that our front-end uses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alrighty, no worries. I might come back to that later some day if I'm feeling super extra. 👍