[SERVER-49437] Richer JavaScript assertions to improve BFG processing Created: 10/Jul/20 Updated: 06/Dec/22 |
|
| Status: | Backlog |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Testing Infrastructure |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Billy Donahue | Assignee: | Backlog - Server Tooling and Methods (STM) (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | shell-improvement | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Assigned Teams: |
Server Tooling & Methods
|
| Participants: |
| Description |
|
I find starting on a BF investigation to be very tedious. You start with some assertion string like "[-1] != [-1]" and try to reverse engineer what the real values involved were at the point of failure. I think the underlying problem is that our assert.js is really only capable of looking at bool conditions, so very valuable, and sometimes unreproducible , information is lost. We could do better if we were using more of an assertion framework in JS tests, with matchers that can report about their inputs in more detail. 5 minutes of Googling revealed a few of them, like Should.js |
| Comments |
| Comment by Steven Vannelli [ 10/May/22 ] |
|
Moving this ticket to the Backlog and removing the "Backlog" fixVersion as per our latest policy for using fixVersions. |
| Comment by Brooke Miller [ 13/Jul/20 ] |
|
Thanks, billy.donahue! robert.guo and I just triaged and discussed this ticket. It's a nice suggestion. We will likely think about doing this ticket as part of PM-1663 or as a separate follow-up project. |
| Comment by David Bradford (Inactive) [ 10/Jul/20 ] |
|
This would likely involve embedding an assertion library into the shell, or having a dramatically different way of executing the tests. Over to STM to take a look. |