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

Refactor and DRY up protocol test generation #3713

Merged

Conversation

david-perez
Copy link
Contributor

Protocol test generation code was one of the earlier parts of
smithy-rs's codebase and it has accrued a fair amount of tech debt as we
have evolved the code generation primitives. Its code was also forked
when the server code generator was introduced, introducing a lot of
duplicated code that has deviated over time.

This commit refactors the code to modern standards and aims to reconcile
commonalities in ProtocolTestGenerator, so that both client and server
can reap centralized improvements over time.


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

Protocol test generation code was one of the earlier parts of
smithy-rs's codebase and it has accrued a fair amount of tech debt as we
have evolved the code generation primitives. Its code was also forked
when the server code generator was introduced, introducing a lot of
duplicated code that has deviated over time.

This commit refactors the code to modern standards and aims to reconcile
commonalities in `ProtocolTestGenerator`, so that both client and server
can reap centralized improvements over time.
@smithy-lang smithy-lang deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 21, 2024
@smithy-lang smithy-lang deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 21, 2024
@david-perez david-perez marked this pull request as ready for review June 21, 2024 13:21
@david-perez david-perez requested review from a team as code owners June 21, 2024 13:21
@david-perez david-perez added the needs-client-review Generic client label Jun 21, 2024
@david-perez david-perez mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2024
7 tasks
@smithy-lang smithy-lang deleted a comment from github-actions bot Jun 21, 2024
Copy link

A new generated diff is ready to view.

A new doc preview is ready to view.

if (runOnly.isEmpty()) {
this.filter { testCase -> testCase.protocol == codegenContext.protocol && !disabledTests.contains(testCase.id) }
} else {
this.filter { testCase -> runOnly.contains(testCase.id) }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thinking out aloud: Should we print to console that we are only running the runOnly set of test cases. In future, we might forget that there is an entry in runOnly and wonder why the test cases are not being executed.

?.getTestCasesFor(appliesTo).orEmpty().map { TestCase.ResponseTest(it, outputShape) }
val responseTestsOnErrors =
operationIndex.getErrors(operationShape).flatMap { error ->
val testCases =
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: Just a style guide issue. Both requestTests and responseTestsOnOperations do not define a temporary variable testCases and then apply .map on that variable. They invoke map function directly:

error.getTrait<HttpResponseTestsTrait>()
    ?.getTestCasesFor(appliesTo).orEmpty().map { TestCase.ResponseTest(it, error) }

* Parses from the model and returns all test cases for [operationShape] applying to the [appliesTo] artifact type
* that should be rendered by implementors.
**/
fun allTestCases(appliesTo: AppliesTo): List<TestCase> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we rename this to allMatchingTestCases since it filters before returning?

const val AWS_QUERY = "aws.protocoltests.query#AwsQuery"
const val EC2_QUERY = "aws.protocoltests.ec2#AwsEc2"
const val REST_JSON_VALIDATION = "aws.protocoltests.restjson.validation#RestJsonValidation"
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't we need one for CBOR?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I assume it'll be added in the CBOR PR once this PR has been merged to main and then the CBOR PR merges the latest main into it (since this PR is refactoring w.r.t the main branch, it's probably supposed to not know about CBOR 🙂)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually, some of these are unused. We only need to refer to service shapes containing failing test cases. I've removed the unused ones.

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.

LGTM, from a client perspective. Thanks for factoring out common pieces!

@ysaito1001 ysaito1001 removed the needs-client-review Generic client label Jun 21, 2024
Copy link

A new generated diff is ready to view.

A new doc preview is ready to view.

@david-perez david-perez added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 27, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit e56f0dd Jun 27, 2024
44 checks passed
@david-perez david-perez deleted the davidpz/dry-up-and-refactor-protocol-test-generation branch June 27, 2024 13:52
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