Add repository search unit and integration tests #2575

Morlinest · 2017-09-22T15:36:39Z

Extracted from #2371. Adds only tests, no feature/fix. Please read FIXME comments (4x).

codecov-io · 2017-09-22T16:54:06Z

Codecov Report

Merging #2575 into master will increase coverage by 0.15%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2575      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   27.13%   27.28%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          86       86              
  Lines       17062    17062              
==========================================
+ Hits         4629     4655      +26     
+ Misses      11755    11728      -27     
- Partials      678      679       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
models/user.go	`18.89% <0%> (+0.65%)`	⬆️
models/repo_list.go	`35.71% <0%> (+10.98%)`	⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0cef8ce...d4bd8d7. Read the comment docs.

lunny · 2017-09-24T14:08:39Z

integrations/api_repo_test.go

+			user2: {count: 4, repoName: "big_test_", privacy: privacyTypePublic}},
+		},
+		{name: "RepositoriesAccessibleAndRelatedToUser", requestURL: fmt.Sprintf("/api/v1/repos/search?uid=%d", user.ID), expectedResults: expectedResults{
+			// FIXME: Should return 4 (all public repositories related to "another" user = owned + collaborative), now returns only public repositories directly owned by user


but here is no user login, what's collaborative?

Repositories related to user.ID. In my opinion logged user is here only to check rights. That means logged user and anonymous user has same rights if searching for repositories related to another user.

But collaborative also includes repositories the user has contributed to. Don't think thats right.
IMO the question is: transitive owning!? (user owns org, org owns repo => user owns repo?) @bkcsoft and me have discussed that already in discord.
His and my opinion was to include org-repos as well.

@daviian It includes repositories, for which user has some rights through teams. In dashboard, collaborative is defined as ownerID != userID and Source as ownerID == userID. You don't know that user is owner of organization from api/repo/search result.

If you own organization, you are automaticaly in Owners team.

I think there should be a vote on the expected behaviour of this API call.
@go-gitea/owners

@lunny @Morlinest I compared the result to githubs implementation. Github doesn't include any repositories from organizations (even owned ones) when searching for repositories of a user. ~~So I think 2 is correct.~~

Please add check for repoOwnerID

Since we need collaborative for our dashboard we should include it in "public" search as well, but limited to public orgs and membership and public repositories.

daviian · 2017-09-24T20:19:02Z

models/repo_list_test.go

+			count: 8},
+		{name: "PublicRepositoriesOfUser",
+			opts:  &SearchRepoOptions{Page: 1, PageSize: 10, OwnerID: 15},
+			count: 3}, // FIXME: Should return 2 (only directly owned repositories), now includes 1 public repository from owned organization


Same comment from above. Transitive owning.

Organization and other repositories related to user should be included only if collaborate option is supplied.

You are right. Should be 2 here.

daviian · 2017-10-07T23:19:49Z

integrations/api_repo_test.go

+			user2: {count: 4, repoName: "big_test_", privacy: privacyTypePublic}},
+		},
+		{name: "RepositoriesAccessibleAndRelatedToUser", requestURL: fmt.Sprintf("/api/v1/repos/search?uid=%d", user.ID), expectedResults: expectedResults{
+			// FIXME: Should return 4 (all public repositories related to "another" user = owned + collaborative), now returns only public repositories directly owned by user


@lunny @Morlinest I compared the result to githubs implementation. Github doesn't include any repositories from organizations (even owned ones) when searching for repositories of a user. ~~So I think 2 is correct.~~

Please add check for repoOwnerID

daviian · 2017-10-07T23:23:49Z

models/repo_list_test.go

+			count: 8},
+		{name: "PublicRepositoriesOfUser",
+			opts:  &SearchRepoOptions{Page: 1, PageSize: 10, OwnerID: 15},
+			count: 3}, // FIXME: Should return 2 (only directly owned repositories), now includes 1 public repository from owned organization


You are right. Should be 2 here.

daviian · 2017-10-07T23:25:34Z

models/repo_list_test.go

+			count: 3}, // FIXME: Should return 2 (only directly owned repositories), now includes 1 public repository from owned organization
+		{name: "PublicAndPrivateRepositoriesOfUser",
+			opts:  &SearchRepoOptions{Page: 1, PageSize: 10, OwnerID: 15, Private: true},
+			count: 6}, // FIXME: Should return 4 (only directly owned repositories), now includes 2 repositories from owned organization


You are right. Should be 4 here.

daviian · 2017-10-07T23:28:03Z

integrations/api_repo_test.go

+			nil:   {count: 1, privacy: privacyTypePublic},
+			user:  {count: 1, privacy: privacyTypePublic},
+			user2: {count: 2}},
+		},


~~Please add check for repoOwnerID~~

Not possible, since includes collaborative too

daviian · 2017-10-07T23:42:01Z

models/repo_list_test.go


 	// test search private repository on explore page
 	repos, count, err = SearchRepositoryByName(&SearchRepoOptions{
 		Keyword:  "repo_13",
 		Page:     1,
 		PageSize: 10,
 		Private:  true,
-		Searcher: &User{ID: 14},


IMO you should leave it as it is.
Although the implementation doesn't need it because no OwnerID i set, but it could be a test that it has no impact.

daviian · 2017-10-07T23:42:09Z

models/repo_list_test.go

@@ -60,10 +55,66 @@ func TestSearchRepositoryByName(t *testing.T) {
 		Page:     1,
 		PageSize: 10,
 		Private:  true,
-		Searcher: &User{ID: 14},


daviian · 2017-10-07T23:43:24Z

models/repo_list_test.go

+		count int
+	}{
+		{name: "PublicRepositoriesByName",
+			opts:  &SearchRepoOptions{Keyword: "big_test_", PageSize: 10},


You should add similar checks as in api_repo_tests for all test cases. E.g. repo name, private/public repositories

daviian · 2017-10-07T23:46:56Z

@Morlinest Please rebase :)

daviian · 2017-10-09T09:43:33Z

LGTM

lunny · 2017-10-10T01:23:14Z

LGTM

lafriks added the type/testing label Sep 22, 2017

lafriks added this to the 1.3.0 milestone Sep 22, 2017

tboerger added the lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. label Sep 22, 2017

lunny requested changes Sep 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

daviian reviewed Sep 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

Morlinest mentioned this pull request Sep 25, 2017

Fix repo search result #2600

Closed

Morlinest force-pushed the feature/add-repo-search-tests branch 2 times, most recently from 8e0c288 to 40efd7c Compare October 2, 2017 21:04

daviian suggested changes Oct 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

Morlinest force-pushed the feature/add-repo-search-tests branch from 40efd7c to 198c2f9 Compare October 8, 2017 09:40

daviian approved these changes Oct 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

lunny approved these changes Oct 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

tboerger added lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. and removed lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. labels Oct 9, 2017

Morlinest added 13 commits October 9, 2017 16:26

Add more repo search tests

f6fca2e

Add and fix /api/repo/search integration tests

0c4383b

Fix repo search tests

2a848d1

Always test returned repos length

c34d0bf

Add test with lower pagesize limit (test more pages)

dbba93a

Simplify unit tests code

053da84

Simplify and unify integration tests code

b14cacc

Improve test coverage

5f2b035

Temporary fix tests due to bugs in current repo search implementation

9f09b27

Revert removing not nil Searcher

86bcf68

Add more checks to tests

1670f15

Simplify privacy checks in /api/repo tests

4e32604

Temporary remove privacy check from repo search tests

d4bd8d7

Morlinest force-pushed the feature/add-repo-search-tests branch from 0bae86d to d4bd8d7 Compare October 9, 2017 14:26

tboerger added lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. and removed lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. labels Oct 10, 2017

lunny merged commit c2346e4 into go-gitea:master Oct 10, 2017

Morlinest deleted the feature/add-repo-search-tests branch October 10, 2017 01:36

go-gitea locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 23, 2020

Uh oh!

Add repository search unit and integration tests #2575

Add repository search unit and integration tests #2575

Uh oh!

Conversation

Morlinest commented Sep 22, 2017

Uh oh!

codecov-io commented Sep 22, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daviian Sep 24, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daviian Sep 25, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daviian Oct 7, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daviian Oct 7, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daviian Oct 7, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

daviian commented Oct 7, 2017

Uh oh!

daviian commented Oct 9, 2017

Uh oh!

lunny commented Oct 10, 2017

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov-io commented Sep 22, 2017 •

edited

Loading

daviian Sep 24, 2017 •

edited

Loading

daviian Sep 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

daviian Oct 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading

daviian Oct 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading

daviian Oct 7, 2017 •

edited

Loading