test scenario itself against real juju #2
Conversation
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
PietroPasotti
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds a new test suite aimed at validating the output of the simulated backend against the output of the real hook tools.
tests/consistency/conftest.py exposes a compare function to be used like:
compare("relation_list", "relation_name").
this will compare the _MockModelBackend result against the result of, essentially, running juju exec -u some-unit/0 -m some-model -- relation-list relation_name.
If the hook tool call returns an error code, wrapped by _ModelBackend in an ops.model.ModelError, compare() checks that _MockModelBackend raises a similar error.
If the hook tool call returns a value, compare() checks that _MockModelBackend returns the exact same value as _ModelBackend.
For now this works with a hardcoded model and unit name, and the State used by _MockModelBackend is also hardcoded.
Next steps:
create a testing charm (or bundle?) to pack and deploy using pytest-operator, and a corresponding State. Or pick a reference charm/bundle to deploy and test with. Probably best.