ops-scenario 2.1.2.2

Python library providing a Scenario-based testing API for Operator Framework charms.

Ops-Scenario

This is a black-box, contract testing framework for Operator Framework charms.

Where the Harness enables you to procedurally mock pieces of the state the charm needs to function, Scenario tests allow you to declaratively define the state all at once, and use it as a sort of context against which you can fire a single event on the charm and execute its logic.

This puts scenario tests somewhere in between unit and integration tests.

Scenario tests nudge you into thinking of charms as an input->output function. Input is what we call a Scene: the union of an event (why am I being executed) and a context (am I leader? what is my relation data? what is my config?...). The output is another context instance: the context after the charm has had a chance to interact with the mocked juju model.

Scenario-testing a charm, then, means verifying that:

• the charm does not raise uncaught exceptions while handling the scene
• the output state (or the diff with the input state) is as expected.

Core concepts as a metaphor

I like metaphors, so here we go:

• There is a theatre stage.
• You pick an actor (a Charm) to put on the stage. Not just any actor: an improv one.
• You arrange the stage with content that the actor will have to interact with. This consists of selecting:
  • An initial situation (State) in which the actor is, e.g. is the actor the main role or an NPC (is_leader), or what other actors are there around it, what is written in those pebble-shaped books on the table?
  • Something that has just happened (an Event) and to which the actor has to react (e.g. one of the NPCs leaves the stage (relation-departed), or the content of one of the books changes).
• How the actor will react to the event will have an impact on the context: e.g. the actor might knock over a table (a container), or write something down into one of the books.

Core concepts not as a metaphor

Scenario tests are about running assertions on atomic state transitions treating the charm being tested like a black box. An initial state goes in, an event occurs (say, 'start') and a new state comes out. Scenario tests are about validating the transition, that is, consistency-checking the delta between the two states, and verifying the charm author's expectations.

Comparing scenario tests with Harness tests:

• Harness exposes an imperative API: the user is expected to call methods on the Harness driving it to the desired , then verify the validity of the state.
• Harness instantiates the charm once, then allows you to fire multiple events on the charm, which is breeding ground for subtle bugs. Scenario tests are centered around testing single state transitions, that is, one event at a time. This ensures that the execution environment is as clean as possible (for a unit test).
• Harness maintains a model of the juju Model, which is a maintenance burden and adds complexity. Scenario mocks at the level of hook tools and stores all mocking data in a monolithic data structure (the State), which makes it more lightweight and portable.
• TODO: Scenario can mock at the level of hook tools. Decoupling charm and context allows us to swap out easily any part of this flow, and even share context data across charms, codebases, teams...

Writing scenario tests

A scenario test consists of three broad steps:

• Arrange:
  • declare the input state
  • select an event to fire
• Act:
  • run the state (i.e. obtain the output state)
• Assert:
  • verify that the output state is how you expect it to be
  • verify that the delta with the input state is what you expect it to be

The most basic scenario is the so-called null scenario: one in which all is defaulted and barely any data is available. The charm has no config, no relations, no networks, and no leadership.

With that, we can write the simplest possible scenario test:

from scenario.state import State
from ops.charm import CharmBase


class MyCharm(CharmBase):
    pass


def test_scenario_base():
    out = State().trigger(
        'start', 
        MyCharm, meta={"name": "foo"})
    assert out.status.unit == ('unknown', '')

Now let's start making it more complicated. Our charm sets a special state if it has leadership on 'start':

import pytest
from scenario.state import State
from ops.charm import CharmBase
from ops.model import ActiveStatus


class MyCharm(CharmBase):
    def __init__(self, ...):
        self.framework.observe(self.on.start, self._on_start)

    def _on_start(self, _):
        if self.unit.is_leader():
            self.unit.status = ActiveStatus('I rule')
        else:
            self.unit.status = ActiveStatus('I am ruled')


@pytest.mark.parametrize('leader', (True, False))
def test_status_leader(leader):
    out = State(leader=leader).trigger(
        'start', 
        MyCharm,
        meta={"name": "foo"})
    assert out.status.unit == ('active', 'I rule' if leader else 'I am ruled')

By defining the right state we can programmatically define what answers will the charm get to all the questions it can ask the juju model: am I leader? What are my relations? What is the remote unit I'm talking to? etc...

Relations

You can write scenario tests to verify the shape of relation data:

from ops.charm import CharmBase

from scenario.state import Relation, State


# This charm copies over remote app data to local unit data
class MyCharm(CharmBase):
    ...

    def _on_event(self, e):
        rel = e.relation
        assert rel.app.name == 'remote'
        assert rel.data[self.unit]['abc'] == 'foo'
        rel.data[self.unit]['abc'] = rel.data[e.app]['cde']


def test_relation_data():
    out = State(relations=[
        Relation(
            endpoint="foo",
            interface="bar",
            remote_app_name="remote",
            local_unit_data={"abc": "foo"},
            remote_app_data={"cde": "baz!"},
        ),
    ]
    ).trigger("start", MyCharm, meta={"name": "foo"})

    assert out.relations[0].local_unit_data == {"abc": "baz!"}
    # you can do this to check that there are no other differences:
    assert out.relations == [
        Relation(
            endpoint="foo",
            interface="bar",
            remote_app_name="remote",
            local_unit_data={"abc": "baz!"},
            remote_app_data={"cde": "baz!"},
        ),
    ]

# which is very idiomatic and superbly explicit. Noice.

Containers

When testing a kubernetes charm, you can mock container interactions. When using the null state (State()), there will be no containers. So if the charm were to self.unit.containers, it would get back an empty dict.

To give the charm access to some containers, you need to pass them to the input state, like so: State(containers=[...])

An example of a scene including some containers:

from scenario.state import Container, State
state = State(containers=[
    Container(name="foo", can_connect=True),
    Container(name="bar", can_connect=False)
])

In this case, self.unit.get_container('foo').can_connect() would return True, while for 'bar' it would give False.

You can configure a container to have some files in it:

from pathlib import Path

from scenario.state import Container, State, Mount

local_file = Path('/path/to/local/real/file.txt')

state = State(containers=[
    Container(name="foo",
              can_connect=True,
              mounts={'local': Mount('/local/share/config.yaml', local_file)})
]
)

In this case, if the charm were to:

def _on_start(self, _):
    foo = self.unit.get_container('foo')
    content = foo.pull('/local/share/config.yaml').read()

then content would be the contents of our locally-supplied file.txt. You can use tempdir for nicely wrapping strings and passing them to the charm via the container.

container.push works similarly, so you can write a test like:

import tempfile
from ops.charm import CharmBase
from scenario.state import State, Container, Mount


class MyCharm(CharmBase):
    def _on_start(self, _):
        foo = self.unit.get_container('foo')
        foo.push('/local/share/config.yaml', "TEST", make_dirs=True)


def test_pebble_push():
    local_file = tempfile.TemporaryFile()
    container = Container(name='foo',
                          mounts={'local': Mount('/local/share/config.yaml', local_file.name)})
    out = State(
        containers=[container]
    ).trigger(
        container.pebble_ready_event,
        MyCharm,
        meta={"name": "foo", "containers": {"foo": {}}},
    )
    assert local_file.open().read() == "TEST"

container.pebble_ready_event is syntactic sugar for: Event("foo-pebble-ready", container=container). The reason we need to associate the container with the event is that the Framework uses an envvar to determine which container the pebble-ready event is about (it does not use the event name). Scenario needs that information, similarly, for injecting that envvar into the charm's runtime.

container.exec is a tad more complicated, but if you get to this low a level of simulation, you probably will have far worse issues to deal with. You need to specify, for each possible command the charm might run on the container, what the result of that would be: its return code, what will be written to stdout/stderr.

from ops.charm import CharmBase

from scenario.state import State, Container, ExecOutput

LS_LL = """
.rw-rw-r--  228 ubuntu ubuntu 18 jan 12:05 -- charmcraft.yaml    
.rw-rw-r--  497 ubuntu ubuntu 18 jan 12:05 -- config.yaml        
.rw-rw-r--  900 ubuntu ubuntu 18 jan 12:05 -- CONTRIBUTING.md    
drwxrwxr-x    - ubuntu ubuntu 18 jan 12:06 -- lib                
"""


class MyCharm(CharmBase):
    def _on_start(self, _):
        foo = self.unit.get_container('foo')
        proc = foo.exec(['ls', '-ll'])
        stdout, _ = proc.wait_output()
        assert stdout == LS_LL


def test_pebble_exec():
    container = Container(
        name='foo',
        exec_mock={
            ('ls', '-ll'):  # this is the command we're mocking
                ExecOutput(return_code=0,  # this data structure contains all we need to mock the call.
                           stdout=LS_LL)
        }
    )
    out = State(
        containers=[container]
    ).trigger(
        container.pebble_ready_event,
        MyCharm,
        meta={"name": "foo", "containers": {"foo": {}}},
    )

Deferred events

Scenario allows you to accurately simulate the Operator Framework's event queue. The event queue is responsible for keeping track of the deferred events. On the input side, you can verify that if the charm triggers with this and that event in its queue (they would be there because they had been deferred in the previous run), then the output state is valid.

from scenario import State, deferred


class MyCharm(...):
    ...
    def _on_update_status(self, e):
        e.defer()
    def _on_start(self, e):
        e.defer()

        
def test_start_on_deferred_update_status(MyCharm):
    """Test charm execution if a 'start' is dispatched when in the previous run an update-status had been deferred."""
    out = State(
      deferred=[
            deferred('update_status', 
                     handler=MyCharm._on_update_status)
        ]
    ).trigger('start', MyCharm)
    assert len(out.deferred) == 1
    assert out.deferred[0].name == 'start'

You can also generate the 'deferred' data structure (called a DeferredEvent) from the corresponding Event (and the handler):

from scenario import Event, Relation

class MyCharm(...):
    ...

deferred_start = Event('start').deferred(MyCharm._on_start)
deferred_install = Event('install').deferred(MyCharm._on_start)

relation events:

foo_relation = Relation('foo') 
deferred_relation_changed_evt = foo_relation.changed_event.deferred(handler=MyCharm._on_foo_relation_changed)

On the output side, you can verify that an event that you expect to have been deferred during this trigger, has indeed been deferred.

from scenario import State


class MyCharm(...):
    ...
    def _on_start(self, e):
        e.defer()

        
def test_defer(MyCharm):
    out = State().trigger('start', MyCharm)
    assert len(out.deferred) == 1
    assert out.deferred[0].name == 'start'

Deferring relation events

If you want to test relation event deferrals, some extra care needs to be taken. RelationEvents hold references to the Relation instance they are about. So do they in Scenario. You can use the deferred helper to generate the data structure:

from scenario import State, Relation, deferred


class MyCharm(...):
    ...
    def _on_foo_relation_changed(self, e):
        e.defer()

        
def test_start_on_deferred_update_status(MyCharm):
    foo_relation = Relation('foo') 
    State(
      relations=[foo_relation],
      deferred=[
            deferred('foo_relation_changed', 
                     handler=MyCharm._on_foo_relation_changed,
                     relation=foo_relation)
        ]
    )

but you can also use a shortcut from the relation event itself, as mentioned above:

from scenario import Relation

class MyCharm(...):
    ...

foo_relation = Relation('foo') 
foo_relation.changed_event.deferred(handler=MyCharm._on_foo_relation_changed)

Fine-tuning

The deferred helper Scenario provides will not support out of the box all custom event subclasses, or events emitted by charm libraries or objects other than the main charm class.

For general-purpose usage, you will need to instantiate DeferredEvent directly.

from scenario import DeferredEvent

my_deferred_event = DeferredEvent(
   handle_path='MyCharm/MyCharmLib/on/database_ready[1]',
   owner='MyCharmLib',  # the object observing the event. Could also be MyCharm.
   observer='_on_database_ready'
)

StoredState

Scenario can simulate StoredState. You can define it on the input side as:

from scenario import State, StoredState

state = State(stored_state=[
    StoredState(
        owner="MyCharmType",
        content={
            'foo': 'bar',
            'baz': {42: 42},
        })
])

And you can run assertions on it on the output side the same as any other bit of state.

TODOS:

• State-State consistency checks.
• State-Metadata consistency checks.
• When ops supports namespace packages, allow pip install ops[scenario] and nest the whole package under /ops.
• Recorder