cwtch.im
/
cwtch
16
20
Fork 15
Code Issues 10 Pull Requests 1 Releases 163 Wiki Activity

Improves test coverage of cwtch_peer.go [#53] #88

Merged
sarah merged 1 commits from gpestana/cwtch:peer-test-coverage into master 2018-07-05 16:50:42 +00:00
Conversation 6 Commits 1 Files Changed 1 +49
gpestana commented 2018-07-04 16:05:11 +00:00
Contributor
Copy Link

WIP

This aims at improving test coverage of cwtch_peer.go

**WIP** This aims at improving test coverage of cwtch_peer.go
sarah closed this pull request 2018-07-04 20:52:28 +00:00
sarah reopened this pull request 2018-07-04 20:52:31 +00:00
buildbot commented 2018-07-04 21:18:54 +00:00
Member
Copy Link

Drone Build Status: success

https://build.openprivacy.ca/cwtch.im/cwtch/108

Drone Build Status: success https://build.openprivacy.ca/cwtch.im/cwtch/108
sarah commented 2018-07-04 22:02:56 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

This looks great. It's marked as WIP did you have any more you wanted to add to it?

This looks great. It's marked as WIP did you have any more you wanted to add to it?
gpestana commented 2018-07-05 07:15:12 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy Link

Thanks! Yes, I'm planning to improve the test coverage a bit more by testing:

  • TrustPeer, BlockPeer, AcceptInvite and RejectInvite
  • JoinServer, SendMessageToGroup
  • Listen, Shutdown

I'm trying now to start/mock peer connections between alice and bob so that those methods can be tests. Do you think I should use the same approach as in ./peerpeerconnection_test.go or should I try to mock the p2p connections?

Thanks! Yes, I'm planning to improve the test coverage a bit more by testing: - `TrustPeer`, `BlockPeer`, `AcceptInvite` and `RejectInvite` - `JoinServer`, `SendMessageToGroup` - `Listen`, `Shutdown` I'm trying now to start/mock peer connections between alice and bob so that those methods can be tests. Do you think I should use the same approach as in `./peerpeerconnection_test.go` or should I try to mock the p2p connections?
sarah commented 2018-07-05 15:48:42 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Awesome! The approach used in peerpeerconnection_test.go is probably the way to go. Mocking connections gets a bit tricky right now because of the underlying interfaces (it would requite some refactoring in libricochet-go.

Are you OK with me merging this test? Or did you want to update it with more tests later?

Awesome! The approach used in `peerpeerconnection_test.go` is probably the way to go. Mocking connections gets a bit tricky right now because of the underlying interfaces (it would requite some refactoring in `libricochet-go`. Are you OK with me merging this test? Or did you want to update it with more tests later?
gpestana commented 2018-07-05 16:46:05 +00:00
Author
Contributor
Copy Link

Sounds good, I'll do it that way.

And yes, please go ahead and merge the PR. I'll create a new one after.

Sounds good, I'll do it that way. And yes, please go ahead and merge the PR. I'll create a new one after.
sarah closed this pull request 2018-07-05 16:50:41 +00:00
dan commented 2018-07-05 16:57:24 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

ok cwtch.im/cwtch/peer 0.292s coverage: 57.6% of statements

awesome!

ok cwtch.im/cwtch/peer 0.292s coverage: 57.6% of statements awesome!
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
applications

   
BLOCKED

   
bug

   
design

   
duplicate

   
enhancement

   
fixed?

   
funding-needed

   
help wanted

   
infrastructure

   
invalid

   
payments

   
qubes

   
question

   
ready-for-implementation

   
refactor

   
spam

   
tapir-server

   
testing

   
tor

   
wontfix
No Label
applications
BLOCKED
bug
design
duplicate
enhancement
fixed?
funding-needed
help wanted
infrastructure
invalid
payments
qubes
question
ready-for-implementation
refactor
spam
tapir-server
testing
tor
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: cwtch.im/cwtch#88
No description provided.
Delete Branch "gpestana/cwtch:peer-test-coverage"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?