- 2022-08-02: Initial Draft
- 2023-03-02: Add precision for integration tests
- 2023-03-23: Add precision for E2E tests
PROPOSED Partially Implemented
Recent work in the SDK aimed at breaking apart the monolithic root go module has highlighted shortcomings and inconsistencies in our testing paradigm. This ADR clarifies a common language for talking about test scopes and proposes an ideal state of tests at each scope.
ADR-053: Go Module Refactoring expresses our desire for an SDK composed of many independently versioned Go modules, and ADR-057: App Wiring offers a methodology for breaking apart inter-module dependencies through the use of dependency injection. As described in EPIC: Separate all SDK modules into standalone go modules, module dependencies are particularly complected in the test phase, where simapp is used as the key test fixture in setting up and running tests. It is clear that the successful completion of Phases 3 and 4 in that EPIC require the resolution of this dependency problem.
In EPIC: Unit Testing of Modules via Mocks it was thought this Gordian knot could be unwound by mocking all dependencies in the test phase for each module, but seeing how these refactors were complete rewrites of test suites discussions began around the fate of the existing integration tests. One perspective is that they ought to be thrown out, another is that integration tests have some utility of their own and a place in the SDK's testing story.
Another point of confusion has been the current state of CLI test suites, x/auth for example. In code these are called integration tests, but in reality function as end to end tests by starting up a tendermint node and full application. EPIC: Rewrite and simplify CLI tests identifies the ideal state of CLI tests using mocks, but does not address the place end to end tests may have in the SDK.
From here we identify three scopes of testing, unit, integration, e2e (end to end), seek to define the boundaries of each, their shortcomings (real and imposed), and their ideal state in the SDK.
Unit tests exercise the code contained in a single module (e.g. /x/bank) or package
(e.g. /client) in isolation from the rest of the code base. Within this we identify two
levels of unit tests, illustrative and journey. The definitions below lean heavily on
The BDD Books - Formulation section 1.3.
Illustrative tests exercise an atomic part of a module in isolation - in this case we might do fixture setup/mocking of other parts of the module.
Tests which exercise a whole module's function with dependencies mocked, are journeys. These are almost like integration tests in that they exercise many things together but still use mocks.
Example 1 journey vs illustrative tests - depinject's BDD style tests, show how we can rapidly build up many illustrative cases demonstrating behavioral rules without very much code while maintaining high level readability.
Example 2 depinject table driven tests
Example 3 Bank keeper tests - A mock implementation of AccountKeeper is supplied to the keeper constructor.
Certain modules are tightly coupled beyond the test phase. A recent dependency report for
bank -> auth found 274 total usages of auth in bank, 50 of which are in
production code and 224 in test. This tight coupling may suggest that either the modules
should be merged, or refactoring is required to abstract references to the core types tying
the modules together. It could also indicate that these modules should be tested together
in integration tests beyond mocked unit tests.
In some cases setting up a test case for a module with many mocked dependencies can be quite cumbersome and the resulting test may only show that the mocking framework works as expected rather than working as a functional test of interdependent module behavior.
Integration tests define and exercise relationships between an arbitrary number of modules and/or application subsystems.
Wiring for integration tests is provided by depinject and some helper code starts up
a running application. A section of the running application may then be tested. Certain
inputs during different phases of the application life cycle are expected to produce
invariant outputs without too much concern for component internals. This type of black box
testing has a larger scope than unit testing.
Example 1 client/grpc_query_test/TestGRPCQuery - This test is misplaced in /client,
but tests the life cycle of (at least) runtime and bank as they progress through
startup, genesis and query time. It also exercises the fitness of the client and query
server without putting bytes on the wire through the use of QueryServiceTestHelper.
Example 2 x/evidence Keeper integration tests - Starts up an application composed of 8
modules with 5 keepers used in the integration test suite. One test in the suite
exercises HandleEquivocationEvidence which contains many interactions with the staking
keeper.
Example 3 - Integration suite app configurations may also be specified via golang (not YAML as above) statically or dynamically.
Setting up a particular input state may be more challenging since the application is starting from a zero state. Some of this may be addressed by good test fixture abstractions with testing of their own. Tests may also be more brittle, and larger refactors could impact application initialization in unexpected ways with harder to understand errors. This could also be seen as a benefit, and indeed the SDK's current integration tests were helpful in tracking down logic errors during earlier stages of app-wiring refactors.
Simulations (also called generative testing) are a special case of integration tests where
deterministically random module operations are executed against a running simapp, building
blocks on the chain until a specified height is reached. No specific assertions are
made for the state transitions resulting from module operations but any error will halt and
fail the simulation. Since crisis is included in simapp and the simulation runs
EndBlockers at the end of each block any module invariant violations will also fail
the simulation.
Modules must implement AppModuleSimulation.WeightedOperations to define their simulation operations. Note that not all modules implement this which may indicate a gap in current simulation test coverage.
Modules not returning simulation operations:
authevidencemintparams
- May take a long time to run, 7-10 minutes per simulation in CI.
- Timeouts sometimes occur on apparent successes without any indication why.
- Useful error messages not provided on from CI, requiring a developer to run the simulation locally to reproduce.
End to end tests exercise the entire system as we understand it in as close an approximation to a production environment as is practical. Presently these tests are located at tests/e2e and rely on testutil/network to start up an in-process Tendermint node.
An application should be built as minimally as possible to exercise the desired functionality. The SDK uses an application will only the required modules for the tests. The application developer is advised to use its own application for e2e tests.
In general the limitations of end to end tests are orchestration and compute cost. Scaffolding is required to start up and run a prod-like environment and the this process takes much longer to start and run than unit or integration tests.
Global locks present in Tendermint code cause stateful starting/stopping to sometimes hang or fail intermittently when run in a CI environment.
The scope of e2e tests has been complected with command line interface testing.
We accept these test scopes and identify the following decisions points for each.
| Scope | App Type | Mocks? |
|---|---|---|
| Unit | None | Yes |
| Integration | integration helpers | Some |
| Simulation | minimal app | No |
| E2E | minimal app | No |
The decision above is valid for the SDK. An application developer should test their application with their full application instead of the minimal app.
All modules must have mocked unit test coverage.
Illustrative tests should outnumber journeys in unit tests.
Unit tests should outnumber integration tests.
Unit tests must not introduce additional dependencies beyond those already present in production code.
When module unit test introduction as per EPIC: Unit testing of modules via mocks
results in a near complete rewrite of an integration test suite the test suite should be
retained and moved to /tests/integration. We accept the resulting test logic
duplication but recommend improving the unit test suite through the addition of
illustrative tests.
All integration tests shall be located in /tests/integration, even those which do not
introduce extra module dependencies.
To help limit scope and complexity, it is recommended to use the smallest possible number of modules in application startup, i.e. don't depend on simapp.
Integration tests should outnumber e2e tests.
Simulations shall use a minimal application (usually via app wiring). They are located under /x/{moduleName}/simulation.
Existing e2e tests shall be migrated to integration tests by removing the dependency on the test network and in-process Tendermint node to ensure we do not lose test coverage.
The e2e rest runner shall transition from in process Tendermint to a runner powered by Docker via dockertest.
E2E tests exercising a full network upgrade shall be written.
The CLI testing aspect of existing e2e tests shall be rewritten using the network mocking demonstrated in PR#12706.
- test coverage is increased
- test organization is improved
- reduced dependency graph size in modules
- simapp removed as a dependency from modules
- inter-module dependencies introduced in test code are removed
- reduced CI run time after transitioning away from in process Tendermint
- some test logic duplication between unit and integration tests during transition
- test written using dockertest DX may be a bit worse
- some discovery required for e2e transition to dockertest
It may be useful if test suites could be run in integration mode (with mocked tendermint) or with e2e fixtures (with real tendermint and many nodes). Integration fixtures could be used for quicker runs, e2e fixures could be used for more battle hardening.
A PoC x/gov was completed in PR #12847
is in progress for unit tests demonstrating BDD [Rejected].
Observing that a strength of BDD specifications is their readability, and a con is the
cognitive load while writing and maintaining, current consensus is to reserve BDD use
for places in the SDK where complex rules and module interactions are demonstrated.
More straightforward or low level test cases will continue to rely on go table tests.
Levels are network mocking in integration and e2e tests are still being worked on and formalized.