Testing Camel Quarkus extensions is very similar to testing Camel Quarkus applications. In both cases, the tests interact with a Camel Quarkus application. The main difference is in the purpose of the tested application: when testing extensions, it is there just for the sake of testing. We use it as a means to indirectly verify the functionality of the underlying extension(s).
The application under test lives under
src/main directory of the test module. It should typically contain one or more Camel routes that utilize the Camel component brought by the extension under test.
ProducerTemplate may be favorable over having a full-fledged route, e.g. when it helps to avoid additional dependencies or where it helps to keep the test application simple.
On the other hand, the use of
ConsumerTemplate should be assessed carefully. In some cases, it may use a different
Consumer implementation (polling vs. non-polling) than what would be used by the given component in a route. Thus, a test application with
ConsumerTemplate may miss covering important execution paths. The rule of thumb is to use
ConsumerTemplate only for components whose default consumer implements
Because native tests run in a process separate from the JVM running the tests, all communication between the tests and the application under test must go over network or some other kind of interprocess communication. We typically use JAX-RS endpoints (on the application side) and RestAssured (on the test side) for this purpose.
As suggested in the Testing user guide, our native tests typically extend their JVM counterparts using the same test code for both JVM and native mode. For this reason we abstain from using CDI and direct call of application code in our tests.
As mentioned in Create new extension section,
Keeping the set of test module dependencies as small as possible has several advantages:
Less code is faster to compile to native image
Additional code may introduce some side effects, mainly in native compilation. For instance, an extension A may configure the native compiler in such a way that it causes also extension B to work properly in native mode. However, if B was tested in isolation, it would not work.
This rule also applies to
assertjand similar testing dependencies: Unless there is some really good reason to do the opposite, they should be kept in Maven
testscope. Having them in the
runtimescope makes them analyzed and possibly compiled by GraalVM when the tests are run in native mode. On one hand, it makes the native compilation slower and on the other hand, those testing artifacts may cause native compilation issues.
Some of our test modules have very similar sets of dependencies. While it is important to test them in isolation, running each separately takes quite a lot of time, mainly due to native compilation. In such cases, it may make sense to create a "grouped" module that unifies (using some tooling) several isolated tests. The grouped module may then be preferred in a CI job that validates pull requests, while the isolated tests are run only once a day.
The isolated test modules are located under
integration-test-groupsdirectory of the source tree.
Grouped modules dynamically pull all sources from their associated isolated test modules to their
application.propertiesfiles and service descriptors are concatenated using a Groovy script.
The dependencies in the grouped
pom.xmlneed to be updated manually via
mvn process-resources -Pformat -Nrun from the root directory of the source tree.
When porting a Camel component to Quarkus, we generally do not want to duplicate all the fine grained tests that are often available in Camel already. Our main goal is to make sure that the main use cases work well in native mode. But how can you figure out which are those?
The use cases explained in the given components documentation usually give a good guidance. For example, when writing tests for the SQL extension, you would go to documentation page of the SQL component and try to cover the use cases mentioned there: Treatment of the message body Result of the query, Using StreamList, etc.
In any case, both consumer and producer of the component (if the component supports both) should be covered.
Especially when testing various configuration setups, having a separate integration test module for each configuration set would be an overkill.
io.quarkus.test.QuarkusUnitTest may suit well for such situations.
A big advantage of this kind of tests is that they are very lightweight and fast. But on the other hand, they are executed only in JVM mode.
Please refer to the Servlet extension for an examples.