Re: Creating tests for the yum package provider

Hi Oliver,
Sorry for taking so long to respond on this.  We definitely appreciate
the help writing some tests for that patch as it looks like something
that would definitely help people once it gets merged in.

Writing tests for puppet providers can be tricky, as you're finding.
I'll take a look and see where you're running into problems.
Hopefully I'll have some help for you by the end of Monday.

(note: this is a duplicate of the email I sent to puppet-dev, which is
definitely more frequently read by developers who can help out with
this kind of stuff)
Matt

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Oliver <ohook### @gmail.com> wrote:
 Sorry, but this is a blatant call for help. I'm desperately out of my
 depth with creating tests due to my lack of experience with just about
 every component involved.

 The background is, I'm trying to create the necessary tests to have
 #2866 accepted. I'm running into problems just getting a basic "should
 specify the package version if one is asked for" test running. I've
 looked through the yum provider code, the other providers, tests for
 other providers etc but can't seem to come up with something that
 works. I'm quite certain it is mostly due to lack of knowledge but
 perhaps also is related to the providers working in slightly different
 ways.

 Here is what I have so far:
 -----

 #!/usr/bin/env ruby

 require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../../../spec_helper'

 provider = Puppet::Type.type(:package).provider(:yum)

 describe provider do
    before do
        # Create a mock resource
        @resource = stub 'resource'

        # A catch all; no parameters set
        @resource.stubs(:[]).returns nil

        # We have to set a name, though
        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:name).returns "mypackage"
        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns :installed
        @resource.stubs(:[]).with(:ensure).returns "1.0"

        @provider = provider.new(@resource)
        @provider.stubs(:resource).returns @resource
    end

    it "should have an install method" do
        @provider.should respond_to(:install)
    end

    it "should be versionable" do
        provider.should be_versionable
    end

    it "should use erase to purge" do
        @provider.expects(:yum).with("-y", :erase, "mypackage")

        @provider.purge
    end

    describe "when installing" do
        it "should specify the package version if one is asked for"
do
            @resource.expects(:name).with(:ensure).returns "1.0"
            @resource.expects(:name)
            @provider.expects(:yum).with("-d", "0", "-e", "0",
"-y",
 :install, "mypackage-1.0")

            @provider.stubs(:yum).returns "yum"
            @provider.install
        end
    end
 end
 -----

 My output is as follows:
 -----

 Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum
 - should have an install method
 - should be versionable
 - should use erase to purge

 Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when installing
 - should specify the package version if one is asked for (FAILED - 1)

 1)
 Puppet::Error in 'Puppet::Type::Package::ProviderYum when installing
 should specify the package version if one is asked for'
 Could not find package
 ./spec/unit/provider/package/yum.rb:45:

/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:22:in
 `run'

/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
 `each'

/home/ohookins/work/puppet/spec/monkey_patches/add_confine_and_runnable_to_rspec_dsl.rb:17:in
 `run'

 Finished in 0.160654 seconds

 4 examples, 1 failure
 -----

 I guess that I am not pre-setting the correct information in the
 mocked provider, so that it thinks the relevant package is available
 to be installed. I previously did not have the
 "@resource.expects(:name)" line in the last test, and it complained
 about an unexpected invocation to <Mock#resource>.name() which
does
 not make sense to me but then, not much of this does.

 Some kind soul helped me out last week on the IRC channel and
 mentioned there may be bugs in the actual provider, but I cannot
 comment on that.

 Any input or flames are welcome.
 Best Regards,
 Oliver

 --