Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve broken protocol test generation #3726

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 1, 2024

Conversation

david-perez
Copy link
Contributor

We currently "hotfix" a broken protocol test in-memory, but there's no
mechanism that alerts us when the broken protocol test has been fixed
upstream when updating our Smithy version. This commit introduces such a
mechanism by generating both the original and the fixed test, with a
#[should_panic] attribute on the former, so that the test fails when
all its assertions succeed.

With this change, in general this approach of fixing tests in-memory
should now be used over adding the broken test to expectFail and
adding the fixed test to a <protocol>-extras.smithy Smithy model,
which is substantially more effort.


By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

We currently "hotfix" a broken protocol test in-memory, but there's no
mechanism that alerts us when the broken protocol test has been fixed
upstream when updating our Smithy version. This commit introduces such a
mechanism by generating both the original and the fixed test, with a
`#[should_panic]` attribute on the former, so that the test fails when
all its assertions succeed.

With this change, in general this approach of fixing tests in-memory
should now be used over adding the broken test to `expectFail` and
adding the fixed test to a `<protocol>-extras.smithy` Smithy model,
which is substantially more effort.
@david-perez david-perez requested review from a team as code owners June 28, 2024 16:12
Copy link

A new generated diff is ready to view.

A new doc preview is ready to view.

@david-perez david-perez added the needs-client-review Generic client label Jun 28, 2024
@david-perez david-perez mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2024
7 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@ysaito1001 ysaito1001 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great mechanism to add! This will be a broken test for a client response test in Smithy 1.50, but it'll probably be fixed in the next Smithy release. Do you still recommend adding that test to brokenTests in ClientProtoclTestGenerator or is that overkill?

Comment on lines +185 to +187
(this is TestCase.RequestTest && brokenTest is BrokenTest.RequestTest && this.id == brokenTest.id) ||
(this is TestCase.ResponseTest && brokenTest is BrokenTest.ResponseTest && this.id == brokenTest.id) ||
(this is TestCase.MalformedRequestTest && brokenTest is BrokenTest.MalformedRequestTest && this.id == brokenTest.id)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: maybe we can factor out this.id == brokenTest.id since it appears in each operand of the OR operator?

@ysaito1001 ysaito1001 removed the needs-client-review Generic client label Jun 28, 2024
@drganjoo drganjoo added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 1, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 7299cdd Jul 1, 2024
44 checks passed
@drganjoo drganjoo deleted the davidpz/improve-broken-protocol-test-generation branch July 1, 2024 09:50
@david-perez
Copy link
Contributor Author

smithy-lang/smithy#2341 will be a broken test for a client response test in Smithy 1.50, but it'll probably be fixed in the next Smithy release. Do you still recommend adding that test to brokenTests in ClientProtoclTestGenerator or is that overkill?

@ysaito1001 Not overkill, that's precisely what brokenTests is for.

github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 5, 2024
## Motivation and Context
This PR upgrades Smithy to 1.50.0. The majority of the changes follow
`TODO` added in #3690.
Other than that, a few adjustments needed to be made:
- for the client
- added two failing tests `RestJsonClientPopulatesDefaultValuesInInput`
and `RestJsonClientUsesExplicitlyProvidedMemberValuesOverDefaults` to
known failing tests for the same reason
[here](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy-rs/blob/main/codegen-client/src/main/kotlin/software/amazon/smithy/rust/codegen/client/smithy/generators/protocol/ClientProtocolTestGenerator.kt#L72)
- added one broken test (i.e. the upstream test definition is incorrect
but our implementation is correct) to known broken tests per
([smithy#2341](smithy-lang/smithy#2341),
[smithy-rs#3726](#3726 (comment)))
- for the server
- removed `rest-xml-extras.smithy` since
`RestXmlMustSupportParametersInContentType` is now available upstream
Smithy 1.50.0
- added the following to known failing tests (since the `awsJson1_0`
counterparts are already in the list, but we need the server team to
verify this assumption & provide additional `TODO` comments if
necessary)
    - `RestJsonServerPopulatesDefaultsWhenMissingInRequestBody`
    - `RestJsonServerPopulatesDefaultsInResponseWhenMissingInParams`,
-
`RestJsonServerPopulatesNestedDefaultValuesWhenMissingInInResponseParams`

## Testing
Existing tests in CI

----

_By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify,
copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your
choice._

---------

Co-authored-by: Zelda Hessler <zhessler@amazon.com>
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
RPC v2 CBOR is a new protocol that ~is being added~ has [recently been
added](https://smithy.io/2.0/additional-specs/protocols/smithy-rpc-v2.html)
to the Smithy
specification.

_(I'll add more details here as the patchset evolves)_

Credit goes to @jjant for initial implementation of the router, which I
built on top of from his
[`jjant/smithy-rpc-v2-exploration`](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy-rs/tree/jjant/smithy-rpc-v2-exploration)
branch.

Tracking issue: #3573.

## Caveats

`TODO`s are currently exhaustively sprinkled throughout the patch
documenting what remains to be done. Most of these need to be addressed
before this can be merged in; some can be punted on to not make this PR
bigger.

However, I'd like to call out the major caveats and blockers here. I'll
keep updating this list as the patchset evolves.

- [x] RPC v2 has still not been added to the Smithy specification. It is
currently being worked on over in the
[`smithy-rpc-v2`](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy/tree/smithy-rpc-v2)
branch. The following are prerrequisites for this PR to be merged;
**until they are done CI on this PR will fail**:
    - [x] Smithy merges in RPC v2 support.
    - [x] Smithy releases a new version incorporating RPC v2 support.
- Released in [Smithy
v1.47](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy/releases/tag/1.47.0)
    - [x] smithy-rs updates to the new version.
        - Updated in #3552
- [x] ~Protocol tests for the protocol do not currently exist in Smithy.
Until those get written~, this PR resorts to Rust unit tests and
integration tests that use `serde` to round-trip messages and compare
`serde`'s encoders and decoders with ours for correctness.
- Protocol tests are under the
[`smithy-protocol-tests`](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy/tree/main/smithy-protocol-tests/model/rpcv2Cbor)
directory in Smithy.
- We're keeping the `serde_cbor` round-trip tests for defense in depth.
- [ ] #3709 - Currently
only server-side support has been implemented, because that's what I'm
most familiar. However, we're almost all the way there to add
client-side support.
- ~[ ] [Smithy `document`
shapes](https://smithy.io/2.0/spec/simple-types.html#document) are not
supported. RPC v2's specification currently doesn't indicate how to
implement them.~
- [The
spec](https://smithy.io/2.0/additional-specs/protocols/smithy-rpc-v2.html#shape-serialization)
ended up leaving them as unsupported: "Document types are not currently
supported in this protocol."

## Prerequisite PRs

This section lists prerequisite PRs and issues that would make the diff
for this one lighter or easier to understand. It's preferable that these
PRs be merged prior to this one; some are hard prerequisites. They
mostly relate to parts of the codebase I've had to touch or ~pilfer~
inspect in this PR where I've made necessary changes, refactors and
"drive-by improvements" that are mostly unrelated, although some
directly unlock things I've needed in this patchset. It makes sense to
pull them out to ease reviewability and make this patch more
semantically self-contained.

- #2516
- #2517
- #2522
- #2524
- #2528
- #2536
- #2537
- #2531
- #2538
- #2539
- #2542
- #3684
- #3678
- #3690
- #3713
- #3726
- #3752

## Testing
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->

~RPC v2 has still not been added to the Smithy specification. It is
currently being worked on over in the
[`smithy-rpc-v2`](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy/tree/smithy-rpc-v2)
branch.~

This can only be tested _locally_ following these steps:

~1. Clone [the Smithy
repository](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy/tree/smithy-rpc-v2)
and checkout the `smithy-rpc-v2` branch.
2. Inside your local checkout of smithy-rs pointing to this PR's branch,
make sure you've added `mavenLocal()` as a repository in the
`build.gradle.kts` files.
[Example](8df82fd).
4. Inside your local checkout of Smithy's `smithy-rpc-v2` branch:
1. Set `VERSION` to the current Smithy version used in smithy-rs (1.28.1
as of writing, but [check
here](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy-rs/blob/main/gradle.properties#L21)).
    2. Run `./gradlew clean build pTML`.~
~6.~ 1. In your local checkout of the smithy-rs's `smithy-rpc-v2`
branch, run `./gradlew codegen-server-test:build -P
modules='rpcv2Cbor'`.

~You can troubleshoot whether you have Smithy correctly set up locally
by inspecting
`~/.m2/repository/software/amazon/smithy/smithy-protocols-traits`.~

## Checklist
<!--- If a checkbox below is not applicable, then please DELETE it
rather than leaving it unchecked -->
- [ ] I have updated `CHANGELOG.next.toml` if I made changes to the
smithy-rs codegen or runtime crates

----

_By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify,
copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your
choice._
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants