Puppet users - Aug 2010 - Creating tests for the yum package provider

Sorry, but this is a blatant call for help. I''m desperately out of my
depth with creating tests due to my lack of experience with just about
every component involved.

The background is, I''m trying to create the necessary tests to have
#2866 accepted. I''m running into problems just getting a basic
"should
specify the package version if one is asked for" test running.
I''ve
looked through the yum provider code, the other providers, tests for
other providers etc but can''t seem to come up with something that
works. I''m quite certain it is mostly due to lack of knowledge but
perhaps also is related to the providers working in slightly different
ways.

Here is what I have so far:
-----

#!/usr/bin/env ruby

require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../../../spec_helper''

provider = Puppet::Type.type(:package).provider(:yum)

describe provider do
    before do
        # Create a mock resource
        @resource = stub ''resource''

        # A catch all; no parameters set
        @resource.stubs(:[]).returns nil

        # We have to set a name, though
        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:name).returns "mypackage"
        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns :installed
        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns "1.0"

        @provider = provider.new(@resource)
        @provider.stubs(:resource).returns @resource
    end

    it "should have an install method" do
        @provider.should respond_to(:install)
    end

    it "should be versionable" do
        provider.should be_versionable
    end

    it "should use erase to purge" do
        @provider.expects(:yum).with("-y", :erase,
"mypackage")

        @provider.purge
    end

    describe "when installing" do
        it "should specify the package version if one is asked for" do
            @resource.expects(:name).with(:ensure).returns "1.0"
            @resource.expects(:name)
            @provider.expects(:yum).with("-d", "0",
"-e", "0", "-y",
:install, "mypackage-1.0")

            @provider.stubs(:yum).returns "yum"
            @provider.install
        end
    end
end
-----

My output is as follows:
-----

Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum
- should have an install method
- should be versionable
- should use erase to purge

Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when installing
- should specify the package version if one is asked for (FAILED - 1)

1)
Puppet::Error in ''Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when installing
should specify the package version if one is asked for''
Could not find package
./spec/unit/provider/package/yum.rb:45:
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:22:in
`run''
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
`each''
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
`run''

Finished in 0.160654 seconds

4 examples, 1 failure
-----

I guess that I am not pre-setting the correct information in the
mocked provider, so that it thinks the relevant package is available
to be installed. I previously did not have the
"@resource.expects(:name)" line in the last test, and it complained
about an unexpected invocation to <Mock#resource>.name() which does
not make sense to me but then, not much of this does.

Some kind soul helped me out last week on the IRC channel and
mentioned there may be bugs in the actual provider, but I cannot
comment on that.

Any input or flames are welcome.
Best Regards,
Oliver

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

Oliver,

You probably want to post this over in puppet-dev@googlegroups.com.

I''ve had the same issue. The code is relatively easy to write but the
tests require a level of Puppet framework knowledge that is beyond
most that don''t work on it regularly.

I''ve also had situations where my tests pass but turn out to be
completely wrong and I couldn''t tell without a review from the main
Puppet devs.

Good Luck!

Trevor

On 8/16/10, Oliver <ohookins@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but this is a blatant call for help. I''m desperately out of
my
> depth with creating tests due to my lack of experience with just about
> every component involved.
<snip/>

-- 
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699
tvaughan@onyxpoint.com

-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

Hi Oliver,
Sorry for taking so long to respond on this.  We definitely appreciate
the help writing some tests for that patch as it looks like something
that would definitely help people once it gets merged in.

Writing tests for puppet providers can be tricky, as you''re finding.
I''ll take a look and see where you''re running into problems.
Hopefully I''ll have some help for you by the end of Monday.

(note: this is a duplicate of the email I sent to puppet-dev, which is
definitely more frequently read by developers who can help out with
this kind of stuff)
Matt

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Oliver <ohookins@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sorry, but this is a blatant call for help. I''m desperately out of
my
> depth with creating tests due to my lack of experience with just about
> every component involved.
>
> The background is, I''m trying to create the necessary tests to
have
> #2866 accepted. I''m running into problems just getting a basic
"should
> specify the package version if one is asked for" test running.
I''ve
> looked through the yum provider code, the other providers, tests for
> other providers etc but can''t seem to come up with something that
> works. I''m quite certain it is mostly due to lack of knowledge but
> perhaps also is related to the providers working in slightly different
> ways.
>
> Here is what I have so far:
> -----
>
> #!/usr/bin/env ruby
>
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../../../spec_helper''
>
> provider = Puppet::Type.type(:package).provider(:yum)
>
> describe provider do
>    before do
>        # Create a mock resource
>        @resource = stub ''resource''
>
>        # A catch all; no parameters set
>        @resource.stubs(:[]).returns nil
>
>        # We have to set a name, though
>        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:name).returns "mypackage"
>        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns :installed
>        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns "1.0"
>
>        @provider = provider.new(@resource)
>        @provider.stubs(:resource).returns @resource
>    end
>
>    it "should have an install method" do
>        @provider.should respond_to(:install)
>    end
>
>    it "should be versionable" do
>        provider.should be_versionable
>    end
>
>    it "should use erase to purge" do
>        @provider.expects(:yum).with("-y", :erase,
"mypackage")
>
>        @provider.purge
>    end
>
>    describe "when installing" do
>        it "should specify the package version if one is asked
for" do
>            @resource.expects(:name).with(:ensure).returns "1.0"
>            @resource.expects(:name)
>            @provider.expects(:yum).with("-d", "0",
"-e", "0", "-y",
> :install, "mypackage-1.0")
>
>            @provider.stubs(:yum).returns "yum"
>            @provider.install
>        end
>    end
> end
> -----
>
> My output is as follows:
> -----
>
> Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum
> - should have an install method
> - should be versionable
> - should use erase to purge
>
> Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when installing
> - should specify the package version if one is asked for (FAILED - 1)
>
> 1)
> Puppet::Error in ''Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when
installing
> should specify the package version if one is asked for''
> Could not find package
> ./spec/unit/provider/package/yum.rb:45:
>
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:22:in
> `run''
>
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
> `each''
>
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
> `run''
>
> Finished in 0.160654 seconds
>
> 4 examples, 1 failure
> -----
>
> I guess that I am not pre-setting the correct information in the
> mocked provider, so that it thinks the relevant package is available
> to be installed. I previously did not have the
> "@resource.expects(:name)" line in the last test, and it
complained
> about an unexpected invocation to <Mock#resource>.name() which does
> not make sense to me but then, not much of this does.
>
> Some kind soul helped me out last week on the IRC channel and
> mentioned there may be bugs in the actual provider, but I cannot
> comment on that.
>
> Any input or flames are welcome.
> Best Regards,
> Oliver
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
>
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.

Hi Oliver,
Dan Bode emailed me to let me know that he has already looked into
this a bit and that he will be on site to work with you this next
week.  I''ll look further into these tests if he doesn''t have
the time
to see this through.
Matt

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Matt Robinson <matt@puppetlabs.com>
wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
> Sorry for taking so long to respond on this.  We definitely appreciate
> the help writing some tests for that patch as it looks like something
> that would definitely help people once it gets merged in.
>
> Writing tests for puppet providers can be tricky, as you''re
finding.
> I''ll take a look and see where you''re running into
problems.
> Hopefully I''ll have some help for you by the end of Monday.
> Matt
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Oliver <ohookins@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, but this is a blatant call for help. I''m desperately
out of my
>> depth with creating tests due to my lack of experience with just about
>> every component involved.
>>
>> The background is, I''m trying to create the necessary tests to
have
>> #2866 accepted. I''m running into problems just getting a basic
"should
>> specify the package version if one is asked for" test running.
I''ve
>> looked through the yum provider code, the other providers, tests for
>> other providers etc but can''t seem to come up with something
that
>> works. I''m quite certain it is mostly due to lack of knowledge
but
>> perhaps also is related to the providers working in slightly different
>> ways.
>>
>> Here is what I have so far:
>> -----
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/env ruby
>>
>> require File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../../../spec_helper''
>>
>> provider = Puppet::Type.type(:package).provider(:yum)
>>
>> describe provider do
>>    before do
>>        # Create a mock resource
>>        @resource = stub ''resource''
>>
>>        # A catch all; no parameters set
>>        @resource.stubs(:[]).returns nil
>>
>>        # We have to set a name, though
>>        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:name).returns "mypackage"
>>        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns :installed
>>        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns "1.0"
>>
>>        @provider = provider.new(@resource)
>>        @provider.stubs(:resource).returns @resource
>>    end
>>
>>    it "should have an install method" do
>>        @provider.should respond_to(:install)
>>    end
>>
>>    it "should be versionable" do
>>        provider.should be_versionable
>>    end
>>
>>    it "should use erase to purge" do
>>        @provider.expects(:yum).with("-y", :erase,
"mypackage")
>>
>>        @provider.purge
>>    end
>>
>>    describe "when installing" do
>>        it "should specify the package version if one is asked
for" do
>>            @resource.expects(:name).with(:ensure).returns
"1.0"
>>            @resource.expects(:name)
>>            @provider.expects(:yum).with("-d", "0",
"-e", "0", "-y",
>> :install, "mypackage-1.0")
>>
>>            @provider.stubs(:yum).returns "yum"
>>            @provider.install
>>        end
>>    end
>> end
>> -----
>>
>> My output is as follows:
>> -----
>>
>> Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum
>> - should have an install method
>> - should be versionable
>> - should use erase to purge
>>
>> Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when installing
>> - should specify the package version if one is asked for (FAILED - 1)
>>
>> 1)
>> Puppet::Error in ''Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when
installing
>> should specify the package version if one is asked for''
>> Could not find package
>> ./spec/unit/provider/package/yum.rb:45:
>>
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:22:in
>> `run''
>>
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
>> `each''
>>
/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
>> `run''
>>
>> Finished in 0.160654 seconds
>>
>> 4 examples, 1 failure
>> -----
>>
>> I guess that I am not pre-setting the correct information in the
>> mocked provider, so that it thinks the relevant package is available
>> to be installed. I previously did not have the
>> "@resource.expects(:name)" line in the last test, and it
complained
>> about an unexpected invocation to <Mock#resource>.name() which
does
>> not make sense to me but then, not much of this does.
>>
>> Some kind soul helped me out last week on the IRC channel and
>> mentioned there may be bugs in the actual provider, but I cannot
>> comment on that.
>>
>> Any input or flames are welcome.
>> Best Regards,
>> Oliver
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Puppet Users" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.