Add unit test for get_counts RPC method (RIPD-1399) #2011
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2011 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 67.25% 67.54% +0.29%
===========================================
Files 683 683
Lines 49231 49231
===========================================
+ Hits 33111 33255 +144
+ Misses 16120 15976 -144
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
src/test/rpc/GetCounts_test.cpp
Outdated
| BEAST_EXPECT(jrr[jss::status] == "success"); | ||
| BEAST_EXPECT(! jrr.isMember("Transaction")); | ||
| BEAST_EXPECT(! jrr.isMember("STObject")); | ||
| BEAST_EXPECT(! jrr.isMember("HashRouterEntry")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How did you decide which fields to look for?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I looked for counted objects in the subsequent request (after there are some actual counts reported) and then just verified that those same fields are not present in this initial request. This is definitely not exhaustive and probably could be improved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems reasonable to me since the RPC doesn't guarantee much.
src/test/rpc/GetCounts_test.cpp
Outdated
| BEAST_EXPECT(jrr[jss::status] == "success"); | ||
| BEAST_EXPECT( | ||
| jrr.isMember("Transaction") && | ||
| jrr["Transaction"].asInt() > 0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little surprised that you're using > 0 comparisons. Since you have complete control of the environment shouldn't most of these values be repeatable? I'm just surprised, not necessarily objecting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are "counted objects" which I didn't feel I had direct enough control over to warrant an exact check. That said, I can very likely access the CountedObjects singleton and validate directly -- do you think that would worthwhile?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm. I'm a little surprised that you don't think the CountedObjects are predicable enough to give reliable results. But I've never looked at them very hard. I certainly accept your assessment.
Interesting thought about comparing to the CountedObject values. It would not be worth heroic efforts to have an exact value to compare against. But if it's relatively easy to do it might be nice. Your call.
src/test/rpc/GetCounts_test.cpp
Outdated
| BEAST_EXPECT(jrr[jss::status] == "success"); | ||
| BEAST_EXPECT( | ||
| jrr.isMember("Transaction") && | ||
| jrr["Transaction"].asInt() > 0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm. I'm a little surprised that you don't think the CountedObjects are predicable enough to give reliable results. But I've never looked at them very hard. I certainly accept your assessment.
Interesting thought about comparing to the CountedObject values. It would not be worth heroic efforts to have an exact value to compare against. But if it's relatively easy to do it might be nice. Your call.
mellery451
added
the
Passed
|
Nice! Revised tests look even better. 👍 |
|
In 0.60.0-b7 |
No description provided.