Allow sanic test client to bind to a random port #1376

relud · 2018-10-19T21:13:23Z

I like to run tests with detox, but using sanic.Sanic.test_client causes issues because of multiple servers trying to simultaneously bind to sanic.testing.PORT.

This solves that problem by having SanicTestClient use socket to bind to a random port when port=None.

sjsadowski · 2018-10-19T21:24:46Z

Hi Daniel - flake8 is fussing because of your line length. Can you fix so the checks will pass?

codecov-io · 2018-10-20T00:09:11Z

Codecov Report

Merging #1376 into master will increase coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #1376      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   91.31%   91.4%   +0.09%     
=========================================
  Files          18      18              
  Lines        1773    1781       +8     
  Branches      336     337       +1     
=========================================
+ Hits         1619    1628       +9     
  Misses        130     130              
+ Partials       24      23       -1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
sanic/testing.py	`95.29% <100%> (+0.48%)`	⬆️
sanic/app.py	`92.25% <0%> (+0.23%)`	⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 348964f...76dcea0. Read the comment docs.

relud · 2018-10-20T00:09:19Z

Whoops, missed that. Should be all fixed up now.

harshanarayana · 2018-11-06T12:14:00Z

docs/sanic/testing.md

+## Using a random port
+
+If you need to test using a random port instead of the default with 
+`SanicTestClient`, you can do so by specifying `port=None`


From a general usability standpoint, wouldn't it be good to reverse the behavior?
i.e. the port param defaults to None and picks a random port, however, you can specify a port and use for running test cases. IMHO, this would be more readable and easy to understand.

As an additional option, we can even add an ENV variable TEST_CLIENT_PORT and use that to provide a much dynamic port assignment.

I like this idea but unless other people pipe up on it I think adding this functionality and changing the default can be addressed separately

Yeah I think changing the default functionality should come with a different PR

abuckenheimer

thanks for the PR! I'd like to suggest a test that the default port functionality remains the same (i.e. response url points to port 42101) and that you add somewhere in the docs what range the random port falls in (I think its 1024 to 65535?).

abuckenheimer · 2018-12-02T00:40:49Z

sanic/testing.py

        self.app = app
        self.port = port

-    async def _local_request(self, method, uri, cookies=None, *args, **kwargs):
+    async def _local_request(
+        self, method, uri, sock=None, cookies=None, *args, **kwargs


My main issue here is that this function signature now has duplicate information, it seems like if we have all the information we need in the caller to infer the url then it should be the callers responsibility for doing so.The easiest way to do that would be self.port = sock.getsockname()[1] after 92, lazily setting the port should be fine but it may be worth thinking about. Another option though is we have a short circuit on 23 for uri's that look like urls, we could similarly do uri = "http://{sock[0]}:{sock[1]}{uri}".format(sock=sock.getaddrname(), uri=uri) at after 92 as well.

I like the idea, but setting self.port causes multiple requests to bind the same port, which may fail if the OS assigned the random port to something else between requests. I think it would be better to set self.sock to None in __init__ and set and unset it from _collect_request() below.

we could similarly do uri = "http://{sock[0]}:{sock[1]}{uri}".format(sock=sock.getaddrname(), uri=uri) at after 92 as well.

I ended up going with that, more or less

abuckenheimer · 2018-12-02T00:42:58Z

docs/sanic/testing.md

+## Using a random port
+
+If you need to test using a random port instead of the default with 
+`SanicTestClient`, you can do so by specifying `port=None`


I like this idea but unless other people pipe up on it I think adding this functionality and changing the default can be addressed separately

ahopkins · 2018-12-25T10:11:52Z

@relud Are you still pursuing this one?

As for the question of changing the functionality, or whether there should be something separate (TEST_CLIENT_PORT for example), I would lean towards making it an opt in feature and not changing the default.

relud · 2018-12-28T20:47:23Z

@ahopkins yes, I'm still pursuing this, I just haven't had time to @abuckenheimer's request because of a very busy december. I'm planning to add the requested test and documentation next week after Tuesday.

ahopkins · 2018-12-29T18:16:11Z

🤘 Happy New Year 🥳

Nelapa · 2019-01-16T16:18:51Z

Vote for PR, feature crashes our CI pipelines too.

sjsadowski · 2019-03-03T22:35:25Z

I'm moving to 19.6, hopefully we can get the changes requested implemented in the PR by then.

@relud if you do get this done before 10-Mar ping me directly so I can get people to review and I'll merge it if the reviewers are satisifed.

relud · 2019-03-04T19:43:47Z

@sjsadowski I believe this has now been updated to address reviews.

sjsadowski added this to the 19.03 milestone Oct 20, 2018

harshanarayana reviewed Nov 6, 2018

View reviewed changes

abuckenheimer suggested changes Dec 2, 2018

View reviewed changes

sjsadowski closed this Mar 3, 2019

sjsadowski reopened this Mar 3, 2019

sjsadowski modified the milestones: 19.3, 19.6 Mar 3, 2019

sjsadowski added pending close: stale labels Mar 3, 2019

Allow sanic test client to bind to a random port

76dcea0

seemethere approved these changes Mar 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

seemethere added needs review the PR appears ready but requires a review and removed pending close: abandoned labels Mar 4, 2019

sjsadowski merged commit d581315 into sanic-org:master Mar 4, 2019

seemethere removed the needs review the PR appears ready but requires a review label Mar 4, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Allow sanic test client to bind to a random port #1376

Allow sanic test client to bind to a random port #1376

relud commented Oct 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

sjsadowski commented Oct 19, 2018

codecov-io commented Oct 20, 2018 •

edited by codecov bot

Loading

relud commented Oct 20, 2018

harshanarayana Nov 6, 2018

abuckenheimer Dec 2, 2018

seemethere Jan 9, 2019

abuckenheimer left a comment

abuckenheimer Dec 2, 2018

relud Dec 28, 2018

relud Mar 4, 2019

abuckenheimer Dec 2, 2018

ahopkins commented Dec 25, 2018

relud commented Dec 28, 2018

ahopkins commented Dec 29, 2018

Nelapa commented Jan 16, 2019

sjsadowski commented Mar 3, 2019

relud commented Mar 4, 2019

Allow sanic test client to bind to a random port #1376

Allow sanic test client to bind to a random port #1376

Conversation

relud commented Oct 19, 2018 • edited Loading

sjsadowski commented Oct 19, 2018

codecov-io commented Oct 20, 2018 • edited by codecov bot Loading

Codecov Report

relud commented Oct 20, 2018

harshanarayana Nov 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abuckenheimer Dec 2, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

seemethere Jan 9, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abuckenheimer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abuckenheimer Dec 2, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

relud Dec 28, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

relud Mar 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

abuckenheimer Dec 2, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahopkins commented Dec 25, 2018

relud commented Dec 28, 2018

ahopkins commented Dec 29, 2018

Nelapa commented Jan 16, 2019

sjsadowski commented Mar 3, 2019

relud commented Mar 4, 2019

relud commented Oct 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

codecov-io commented Oct 20, 2018 •

edited by codecov bot

Loading