Skip to content

Conversation

@thaJeztah
Copy link

Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
@thaJeztah
Copy link
Author

@laurazard let me know if these make sense 😅

@laurazard
Copy link
Owner

Thank you @thaJeztah!! Sorry for the delay looking at this 😓

@laurazard laurazard merged commit 50d81c8 into laurazard:fix-connhelper-docker-example Jun 9, 2023
@thaJeztah thaJeztah deleted the fix-connhelper-docker-example_nits_and_suggestions branch June 9, 2023 09:33
@thaJeztah
Copy link
Author

No worries! Wasn't sure if you noticed this one (I personally always overlook PR's in my own namespace on GitHub 😂)

@laurazard
Copy link
Owner

No, I totally missed it 😅

laurazard pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2024
This makes a quick pass through our tests;

Discard output/err
----------------------------------------------

Many tests were testing for error-conditions, but didn't discard output.
This produced a lot of noise when running the tests, and made it hard
to discover if there were actual failures, or if the output was expected.
For example:

    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors
    Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
    See 'create --help'.

    Usage:  create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]

    Create a config from a file or STDIN
    Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
    See 'create --help'.

    Usage:  create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]

    Create a config from a file or STDIN
    Error: error creating config
    --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)

And after discarding output:

    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors
    --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)

Use sub-tests where possible
----------------------------------------------

Some tests were already set-up to use test-tables, and even had a usable
name (or in some cases "error" to check for). Change them to actual sub-
tests. Same test as above, but now with sub-tests and output discarded:

    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors
    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments
    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01
    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config
    --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
        --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments (0.00s)
        --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 (0.00s)
        --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config (0.00s)
    PASS

It's not perfect in all cases (in the above, there's duplicate "expected"
errors, but Go conveniently adds "#1" for the duplicate). There's probably
also various tests I missed that could still use the same changes applied;
we can improve these in follow-ups.

Set cmd.Args to prevent test-failures
----------------------------------------------

When running tests from my IDE, it compiles the tests before running,
then executes the compiled binary to run the tests. Cobra doesn't like
that, because in that situation `os.Args` is taken as argument for the
command that's executed. The command that's tested now sees the test-
flags as arguments (`-test.v -test.run ..`), which causes various tests
to fail ("Command XYZ does not accept arguments").

    # compile the tests:
    go test -c -o foo.test

    # execute the test:
    ./foo.test -test.v -test.run TestFoo
    === RUN   TestFoo
    Error: "foo" accepts no arguments.

The Cobra maintainers ran into the same situation, and for their own
use have added a special case to ignore `os.Args` in these cases;
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L1078-L1083

    args := c.args

    // Workaround FAIL with "go test -v" or "cobra.test -test.v", see docker#155
    if c.args == nil && filepath.Base(os.Args[0]) != "cobra.test" {
        args = os.Args[1:]
    }

Unfortunately, that exception is too specific (only checks for `cobra.test`),
so doesn't automatically fix the issue for other test-binaries. They did
provide a `cmd.SetArgs()` utility for this purpose
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L276-L280

    // SetArgs sets arguments for the command. It is set to os.Args[1:] by default, if desired, can be overridden
    // particularly useful when testing.
    func (c *Command) SetArgs(a []string) {
        c.args = a
    }

And the fix is to explicitly set the command's args to an empty slice to
prevent Cobra from falling back to using `os.Args[1:]` as arguments.

    cmd := newSomeThingCommand()
    cmd.SetArgs([]string{})

Some tests already take this issue into account, and I updated some tests
for this, but there's likely many other ones that can use the same treatment.

Perhaps the Cobra maintainers would accept a contribution to make their
condition less specific and to look for binaries ending with a `.test`
suffix (which is what compiled binaries usually are named as).

Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
laurazard pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
This makes a quick pass through our tests;

Discard output/err
----------------------------------------------

Many tests were testing for error-conditions, but didn't discard output.
This produced a lot of noise when running the tests, and made it hard
to discover if there were actual failures, or if the output was expected.
For example:

    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors
    Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
    See 'create --help'.

    Usage:  create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]

    Create a config from a file or STDIN
    Error: "create" requires exactly 2 arguments.
    See 'create --help'.

    Usage:  create [OPTIONS] CONFIG file|- [flags]

    Create a config from a file or STDIN
    Error: error creating config
    --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)

And after discarding output:

    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors
    --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)

Use sub-tests where possible
----------------------------------------------

Some tests were already set-up to use test-tables, and even had a usable
name (or in some cases "error" to check for). Change them to actual sub-
tests. Same test as above, but now with sub-tests and output discarded:

    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors
    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments
    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01
    === RUN   TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config
    --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors (0.00s)
        --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments (0.00s)
        --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/requires_exactly_2_arguments#01 (0.00s)
        --- PASS: TestConfigCreateErrors/error_creating_config (0.00s)
    PASS

It's not perfect in all cases (in the above, there's duplicate "expected"
errors, but Go conveniently adds "#1" for the duplicate). There's probably
also various tests I missed that could still use the same changes applied;
we can improve these in follow-ups.

Set cmd.Args to prevent test-failures
----------------------------------------------

When running tests from my IDE, it compiles the tests before running,
then executes the compiled binary to run the tests. Cobra doesn't like
that, because in that situation `os.Args` is taken as argument for the
command that's executed. The command that's tested now sees the test-
flags as arguments (`-test.v -test.run ..`), which causes various tests
to fail ("Command XYZ does not accept arguments").

    # compile the tests:
    go test -c -o foo.test

    # execute the test:
    ./foo.test -test.v -test.run TestFoo
    === RUN   TestFoo
    Error: "foo" accepts no arguments.

The Cobra maintainers ran into the same situation, and for their own
use have added a special case to ignore `os.Args` in these cases;
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L1078-L1083

    args := c.args

    // Workaround FAIL with "go test -v" or "cobra.test -test.v", see docker#155
    if c.args == nil && filepath.Base(os.Args[0]) != "cobra.test" {
        args = os.Args[1:]
    }

Unfortunately, that exception is too specific (only checks for `cobra.test`),
so doesn't automatically fix the issue for other test-binaries. They did
provide a `cmd.SetArgs()` utility for this purpose
https://github.com/spf13/cobra/blob/v1.8.1/command.go#L276-L280

    // SetArgs sets arguments for the command. It is set to os.Args[1:] by default, if desired, can be overridden
    // particularly useful when testing.
    func (c *Command) SetArgs(a []string) {
        c.args = a
    }

And the fix is to explicitly set the command's args to an empty slice to
prevent Cobra from falling back to using `os.Args[1:]` as arguments.

    cmd := newSomeThingCommand()
    cmd.SetArgs([]string{})

Some tests already take this issue into account, and I updated some tests
for this, but there's likely many other ones that can use the same treatment.

Perhaps the Cobra maintainers would accept a contribution to make their
condition less specific and to look for binaries ending with a `.test`
suffix (which is what compiled binaries usually are named as).

Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
(cherry picked from commit ab23024)
Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
laurazard pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2025
contains a fix for CVE-2024-45338 / https://go.dev/issue/70906,
but it doesn't affect our codebase:

    govulncheck -show=verbose ./...
    Scanning your code and 1260 packages across 211 dependent modules for known vulnerabilities...
    ...
    Vulnerability #1: GO-2024-3333
        Non-linear parsing of case-insensitive content in golang.org/x/net/html
      More info: https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2024-3333
      Module: golang.org/x/net
        Found in: golang.org/x/net@v0.32.0
        Fixed in: golang.org/x/net@v0.33.0

    Your code is affected by 0 vulnerabilities.
    This scan also found 0 vulnerabilities in packages you import and 1
    vulnerability in modules you require, but your code doesn't appear to call these
    vulnerabilities.

full diff: golang/net@v0.32.0...v0.33.0

Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
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.

2 participants