add chainlink health command; make DB available for testscript client/server tests #11591
Conversation
|
I see that you haven't updated any README files. Would it make sense to do so? |
jmank88
changed the title
jmank88
force-pushed
the
health-cmd
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f1079e1
to
0f1c3a1
Compare
testdata/scripts/health/health.txtar
Outdated
| CL_DATABASE_URL | ||
|
|
||
| -- password -- | ||
| T.tLHkcmwePT/p,]sYuntjwHKAsrhm#4eRs4LuKHwvHejWYAC2JP4M8HimwgmbaZ |
jmank88
force-pushed
the
health-cmd
branch
9 times, most recently
from
6974109
to
fe3581e
Compare
| KindEmpty Kind = iota | ||
| KindTemplate | ||
| KindFixtures |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I always had a hard time reading these funcs, but never looked too closely before. The bool params were not only hard to read, but also mutually exclusive. IMHO it is simpler to combine them in to one option. Before combining, I had just moved them to a separate config struct, so here I ended up settling on a method instead of a func. I considered undoing that, but FWIW this way is nicer for callers outside the package, since it avoids repeating the long package name:
cfg, db := heavyweight.KindEmpty.PrepareDB(t, nil)vs.
cfg, db := heavyweight.PrepareDB(t, heavyweight.KindEmpty, nil)
| te.Setenv("VERSION", static.Version) | ||
| te.Setenv("COMMIT_SHA", static.Sha) | ||
|
|
||
| b, err := os.ReadFile(filepath.Join(te.WorkDir, testPortName)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why do we need to read a file here? the file name is testPortName?
does the envVarName need to be dynamic? does each test get a clean env? can we use something fixed and obvious like ~ TX_TEST_PORT
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I needed a mechanism to request these optionally, and I was thinking that more advanced tests could require more than one port or DB, in which case this can easily expand to parse multiple lines 🤷
|
SonarQube Quality Gate
|
| // | ||
| // -- testdb.txt -- | ||
| // CL_DATABASE_URL | ||
| testDBName = "testdb.txt" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i don't see these files in the PR. what's happening? are tests dynamically creating them or something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are embedded in the *.txtar files as described in the comment:
-- testdb.txt --
CL_DATABASE_URL
| if err != nil { | ||
| return s.errorOut(err) | ||
| } | ||
| fmt.Println(string(b)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this print intentional? No formatting?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct. No formatting necessary. Either it is already plaintext, or they requested raw JSON via the flag anyways. We could pretty print the JSON, but the text version is already the human formatted version of the JSON, and it is trivial for them to use | jq if they really need that anyways.
Add a
chainlink healthcommand to print the health status in plaintext or json.Also rigged up database usage for the testscript/txtar tests, so that we can test client/server interaction.