undefined | Better HN

0 pointssverhagen2y ago0 comments

If you have an existing in-house framework for anything, maybe it's not worth switching over. It does help though when a best practice bubbles to the top and makes this in reach for those who don't have an existing in-house framework and who wouldn't know how to get started on one. It also helps for more people to have a shared understanding about a subject like this thanks to a popular implementation.

Meanwhile, Testcontainers is done quite well. It's not perfect, but it's sure better than the in-house stuff I built in the past (for the same basic concept).

No, it does not start faster than other Docker containers.

I do challenge the testing pyramid, though. At the risk of repeating my other comment on a different branch of the discussion: the value of integration tests is high, as the cost of integration tests has decreased, it makes sense to do more integration testing, at the expense of unit testing. The cost has decreased exactly due to Docker and mature application frameworks (like in Java: Spring). (See: Testing Trophy.)

0 comments

debosmit2y ago

one thing i have seen with testcontainers (been a user for a few years) is the ergonomic SDKs that they have especially in languages like golang, it makes spinning containers up/down, accessing the ports (eg: a mongodb container for some e2e test flow) super trivial - its like a nicety layer on top of vanilla docker (w/ the cost of including their sdk in your test build process)

yes, 100% can be done using docker directly or docker rest api (and def doesn't make sense to migrate if you have already made an investment in an in-house framework that doesn't require much upkeep)

weq2y ago

thanks for the responses, i just wanted to cut through the marketing. taking on standardised tools is a win for me, i just wanted to know about real world experience and use-case. Indeed taking on deps is not something i do lightly.

> value of test pyramid

I mean more from the perspective of covering your bases, you never just want one kind of testing pattern in your project. Each codebase is different and i agree that taking on high value test styles/cases is a project by project challange that should be tailored by many variables. The shape of your testing pyramid may be different to others. If your inheriting a legacy system, maybe its top heavy because the effort/reward ratio just isnt there. In this circumstances i usually take on the approach of "add more layers when bugs are found" to hone in on places that could use more or less test coverage.

Our inhouse framework is really just a wrapper around certain tools that fill different gaps (think docker/selenium etc) in order for different projects to build suites that are compatible with our ci/cd pipelines that do things like generate environments on demand to run test suites against. So dropping in testcontainers to replace the home-grown docker will be trivial. Keeping test frameworks fresh and compatible with the cloud vendors that agreesively upgrade is a challange just like keeping the API bleed of other programming deps is. Our test suites essentially have a domain language that is consistant. We can upgrade selenium, swap functions for different operations, without having to change any tests. Same goes for unit or integration tests - they are exactly the same in terms of assertions, syntax etc, they may just just have different environment setup logic. CI/CD can inject and overrride logic as it needs. Sometimes its suitable, in some cases, to mock certain external hard deps in integration tests for instance to having all the unit testing tools availible a plus. Or in other cases, we may take a unit test written against mocks, and inject real deps into it for certain CI/CD scenarios.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse