[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.

Generated at Thu Feb 08 05:19:50 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.7.1#970001-sha1:2222b88b221c4928ef0de3161136cc90c8356a66.