mirror of
https://github.com/taylanbakircioglu/haproxy-openmanager.git
synced 2026-09-21 01:53:24 +00:00
taylanbakircioglu
c5fbbd753f
The branch shipped 245 tests and 72 of them covered redaction, all passing,
while six real endpoints of this application still wrote secrets to
`request_logs`. That is not a gap in effort, it is a gap in kind: those tests
pin the RULES - which key names match, which value shapes fire - and a rule test
proves the rule, not the coverage. Nothing was measuring what this system
actually sends.
51 tests in two files, every case built from a real handler's request or
response shape with the field names taken from the source and cited in the
docstring.
test_request_log_real_payloads.py drives payloads through `decode_body()`, the
same entry point the writer uses, rather than calling `redact()` on a dict. That
is load-bearing: a config upload is routinely larger than the capture cap, so it
never reaches redaction as a dict at all - it arrives as one truncated `_raw`
string where the line breaks are still the escape `\n`. A test that starts from
a dict reports a pass on a payload that leaks, and on one that gets masked into
uselessness. Both properties are asserted on both paths: the secret is gone AND
the rest of the config is still readable.
test_request_log_fleet_scale.py pins the four behavioural fixes, each of which
only appears at scale or at the edge of a setting's documented range:
* successful agent polls are dropped and failures never are, including a
transport error with no HTTP response at all;
* agent traffic is identified from headers, and `offer()` is asserted to
contain no `await` and no connection call, because it runs on the request
coroutine;
* `requestlog.read` scoping admits agent rows but NOT `user_id IS NULL`, so
anonymous traffic and the usernames in failed logins stay admin-only;
* background passes get one id each, and unwrapped background code does not
collapse onto one either;
* queue memory stays inside its budget with `max_body_bytes` at its 256 KB
ceiling, and the budget is released as rows drain - a budget that only
counts up is a leak, not a limit.
Also closes a hole in the branch's own auth tests: they asserted that every
endpoint calls `_require`, but not that it is called BEFORE the try block. The
repo's GHSA-3p5c pattern exists because a permission check inside `try` is
swallowed by the handler's `except Exception -> 500`, which turns a 403 into a
server error and hides that the check ran. Now asserted per endpoint.
Both halves of each trade are pinned: alongside every "this must be redacted"
there is an "and this must not be", so a later tightening cannot quietly blank
the fields the feature exists to show.
HAProxy Management UI - Unit Tests
Overview
Comprehensive unit test suite for the HAProxy Management UI backend, covering critical business logic and ensuring reliability.
Test Structure
Backend Tests (backend/tests/)
test_soft_delete.py- Soft delete functionality and unique constraintstest_apply_process.py- Critical apply process that manages entity statestest_entity_sync.py- Entity-specific agent sync calculationstest_haproxy_config.py- HAProxy configuration generationtest_auth.py- Authentication and authorization
Frontend Tests (frontend/src/components/__tests__/)
EntitySyncStatus.test.js- Agent sync status componentApplyManagement.test.js- Apply management workflowSSLManagement.test.js- SSL certificate management
Running Tests
Backend Tests
# Install test dependencies
pip install -r backend/requirements-test.txt
# Run all tests
pytest
# Run specific test file
pytest backend/tests/test_apply_process.py
# Run with coverage
pytest --cov=backend --cov-report=html
# Run specific test
pytest backend/tests/test_soft_delete.py::TestSoftDeleteUniqueConstraints::test_backend_soft_delete_allows_name_reuse
Frontend Tests
# Run all frontend tests
npm test
# Run with coverage
npm run test:coverage
# Run in CI mode
npm run test:ci
Test Coverage Goals
- Backend: 70% minimum coverage
- Frontend: 70% minimum coverage
- Critical paths: 90%+ coverage (apply process, soft delete, entity sync)
Critical Test Areas
🔴 HIGH PRIORITY
- Apply Process - Prevents entity disappearance bugs
- Soft Delete Logic - Ensures proper unique constraint handling
- Entity Sync Calculations - Agent sync status accuracy
- Authentication/Authorization - Security validation
🟡 MEDIUM PRIORITY
- HAProxy Config Generation - Configuration correctness
- SSL Management - Certificate lifecycle
- Form Validations - Input validation
🟢 LOW PRIORITY
- UI Components - Visual behavior
- Utility Functions - Helper functions
Mock Strategy
Backend Mocking
- Database connections:
AsyncMockfor database operations - External APIs: Mock HTTP calls
- File operations: Mock file system access
Frontend Mocking
- API calls: Mock axios requests
- Ant Design components: Mock component behavior
- Context providers: Mock React contexts
Test Data
All tests use consistent mock data from conftest.py:
- Sample clusters, backends, frontends
- Mock users and authentication
- Config versions and SSL certificates
Debugging Tests
# Run with verbose output
pytest -v -s
# Run specific failing test
pytest backend/tests/test_apply_process.py::TestApplyProcess::test_apply_process_preserves_active_entities -v -s
# Drop into debugger on failure
pytest --pdb
Integration with CI/CD
Tests are designed to run in Azure DevOps pipeline:
# Example pipeline step
- script: |
pip install -r backend/requirements-test.txt
pytest --cov=backend --cov-report=xml
displayName: 'Run Backend Tests'
- script: |
npm ci
npm run test:ci
displayName: 'Run Frontend Tests'
Adding New Tests
- Follow naming convention:
test_*.pyfor backend,*.test.jsfor frontend - Use appropriate fixtures: Leverage existing mock data
- Test edge cases: Include error scenarios and boundary conditions
- Update coverage: Ensure new code maintains coverage thresholds
Common Issues
Backend
- Async tests: Use
@pytest.mark.asynciodecorator - Database mocking: Ensure proper mock setup for database operations
- Import paths: Use relative imports for testable modules
Frontend
- Component rendering: Wait for async operations with
waitFor - Event simulation: Use
fireEventfor user interactions - Mock cleanup: Clear mocks between tests with
jest.clearAllMocks()
Test Philosophy
These tests focus on:
- Business logic correctness over implementation details
- Critical path coverage over 100% coverage
- Regression prevention based on actual bugs encountered
- Maintainability with clear, readable test cases
The test suite is designed to catch the types of bugs we've actually encountered in production, particularly around the apply process and soft delete behavior.
Test deployment trigger - $(date)