Mocha setup/teardown lifecycle problem?

[Julian May]

Moin!

I've been having problems with my first test-suite.
It seems the "beforeEach" of sub-scope descriptions s is executed before the parent root "it".
 

Vlad from the Mocha gg ( https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mochajs/DFw9J9gAuMU ), hints that it might be because the collection instance executing asyncronously.

... But, as far as i understand, everything is syncronousl in foxx - right?

Reproducable on Windows 7,8 & 10 in version 2.7.2, 2.7.3 & 2.8.0.beta-3

/*global describe, it */

'use strict';

var expect = require('chai').expect;

var theCollection = applicationContext.collection('Whatever');

describe('top level describe', function () {

    beforeEach('top level beforeEach', function () {

        theCollection.truncate();

        theCollection.insert({wat:'inserted at top level'});

    });

    it('top level test', function () {

        var docs = theCollection.all().toArray();

        expect(docs.length).to.be.equal(1);

        expect(docs[0]).to.have.property('wat', 'inserted at top level');

    });

    describe('2nd level describe', function () {

        beforeEach('2nd level beforeEach', function () {

            theCollection.insert({ wat: 'inserted at 2nd level' });

        });

        it('2nd level test', function () {

            var docs = theCollection.all().toArray();

            expect(docs.length).to.be.equal(2);

            expect(docs[1]).to.have.property('wat', 'inserted at 2nd level');

        });

    });

    describe('other 2nd level describe', function () {

        beforeEach('other 2nd level beforeEach', function () {

            theCollection.truncate();

            theCollection.insert({ wat: 'inserted at other 2nd level' });

        });

        it('2nd level test', function () {

var docs = theCollection.all().toArray();

            expect(docs.length).to.be.equal(1);

            expect(docs[0]).to.have.property('wat', 'inserted at other 2nd level');

        });

    });

    

});

fails with the following:

Completed 3 tests in 17ms (0/3/0)

top level describe

• top level test

  AssertionError: expected { Object (_id, _key, ...) } to have a property 'wat' of 'inserted at top level', but got 'inserted at other 2nd level'
      at Context. (C:\code\Arango\Foxx\_db\_system\pathtast\APP\test\example.js:14:33)
      at Function.global.DEFINE_MODULE.exports.nextTick (C:\ArangoDB\2.8.0-beta3\bin\../share/arangodb/js/common/bootstrap/modules/process.js:26:3)

[Julian May]

Just confirmed that this is not isolated to windows - happens in docker-container as well (not sure if it helps)

/Julian

[Alan Plum]

Hi Julian,

that sounds like a bug in our mocha integration. I'm surprised to see `nextTick` in the stack trace as the tests are indeed executed synchronously.

I'll look into it.

Cheers,

Alan

[Julian May]

In the vein of problems with tests and life-cycle:
It seems that a reference to a repository will store (and return) documents even though the respective collection.truncate() has been called. 

If this is intentional, I think it merrits a by-line in the Foxx Testing cookbook at the least. Took me a (long) while refactoring my code over and over before identifying this.

[Julian May]

.. Or maybe it's a transactional thing I'm having trouble with?

Not sure if it's even related or should be in another thread, but here goes:

I'm a javascript noob, so it's hard for me to filter what is strange/wrong and what is javascript (all the same at this point, one big confusion) - but I'm fairly certiain this is something related to transactional behavior in tests that i dont understand.

Example (code from extended repository function):

    var q = qb.let('n', qb.fn('DATE_DIFF')(qb.str(fromDate), qb.str(toDate), qb.str('d'), qb.bool(false)))

            .for('i').in(qb.expr('0..n-1'))

                .let('d', qb.fn('xpectra::availability::iso8601todatenumber')(qb.fn('DATE_ADD')(qb.str(fromDate), qb.ref('i'), qb.str('day'))))

                .upsert({ date: qb.ref('d'), roomType: qb.str(roomType)})

                    .insert({ date: qb.ref('d'), roomType: qb.str(roomType), modifier: qb.num(-1)})

                    .update({ modifier: qb.expr('OLD.modifier -1')})

                .in(this.collection);

                

    if(debug){

         var all = db._query(qb.for('x').in(this.collection).return('x')).toArray();

         throw new Error("RoomTypeModifications at this point (after decrementing):            " + JSON.stringify(all) + "        used this query:     " + q.toAQL());     

    }

gives us this:

Error: RoomTypeModifications at this point (after decrementing):            []        used this query:     LET n = DATE_DIFF("2016-01-27", "2016-01-29", "d", false) FOR i IN 0..n-1 LET d = xpectra::availability::iso8601todatenumber(DATE_ADD("2016-01-27", i, "day")) UPSERT {date: d, roomType: "TST"} INSERT {date: d, roomType: "TST", modifier: -1} UPDATE {modifier: OLD.modifier -1} IN availability_RoomTypeAvailabilitytModifier

BUT if I copy the AQL, paste it into AQL Editor and executes it here (with a truncated 'availability_RoomTypeAvailabilityModifier' collection), i get this:

SO there's a difference somewhere that i do not understand. 

Whatever it is, I need to understand it and compensate accordingly. Any help or pointers is (as always) much appreciated :)

Thanks

/Julian

[Julian May]

Kindly disregard my last couple of posts - figured it out :]

[Alan Plum]

Hi Julian,

could you clarify what you found out?

Cheers