152 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
152 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
|
# 10. 测试策略
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 决策
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
JUnit 5 + MockK 做单元测试，Testcontainers 做集成测试，WireMock 做外部依赖打桩，分层对应 [02-layering.md](./02-layering.md)。
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 分层测试策略
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- **domain 层**（有的话）：纯单元测试，不起 Spring 容器，mock 掉 repository/client 接口，验证业务规则本身。
|
|||
|
|
- **application 层**：`@SpringBootTest` 或轻量 slice test，mock 掉 infrastructure 层。
|
|||
|
|
- **infrastructure 层**：用 Testcontainers 起真实数据库跑 repository 测试，避免 H2 和生产数据库行为差异导致的假通过。
|
|||
|
|
- **api 层**：`@WebMvcTest` 验证参数校验、异常处理、响应结构是否符合 [06-api-design.md](./06-api-design.md) 的约定。
|
|||
|
|
- **f6-integration / mini-clients**：对外部依赖用 WireMock 打桩，覆盖超时/重试/熔断路径。
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## `domain` 层单元测试示例（对应 02 里的换票场景）
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```kotlin
|
|||
|
|
// domains/webview-ticket/src/test/kotlin/.../IssueWebviewTicketServiceTest.kt
|
|||
|
|
class IssueWebviewTicketServiceTest {
|
|||
|
|
private val ticketRepository = mockk<WebviewTicketRepository>()
|
|||
|
|
private val fixedClock = Clock.fixed(Instant.parse("2026-01-01T00:00:00Z"), ZoneOffset.UTC)
|
|||
|
|
private val service = IssueWebviewTicketService(ticketRepository, fixedClock)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@Test
|
|||
|
|
fun `复用未过期的已签发票据`() {
|
|||
|
|
val existing = WebviewTicket("t1", storeId = 1, userId = 1, status = TicketStatus.ISSUED,
|
|||
|
|
expiresAt = fixedClock.instant().plusSeconds(60))
|
|||
|
|
every { ticketRepository.findActiveTicket(1, 1) } returns existing
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
val result = service.issue(userId = 1, storeId = 1)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
assertEquals("t1", result.ticketId)
|
|||
|
|
verify(exactly = 0) { ticketRepository.save(any()) } // 复用场景不应该重新签发
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@Test
|
|||
|
|
fun `没有有效票据时签发新票据`() {
|
|||
|
|
every { ticketRepository.findActiveTicket(1, 1) } returns null
|
|||
|
|
every { ticketRepository.save(any()) } just Runs
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
val result = service.issue(userId = 1, storeId = 1)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
assertEquals(TicketStatus.ISSUED, result.status)
|
|||
|
|
verify(exactly = 1) { ticketRepository.save(any()) }
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
不起 Spring 容器、不连数据库，纯 JVM 内存跑完，这类测试应该是数量最多、跑得最快的一层。
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## `infrastructure` 层集成测试示例（Testcontainers）
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```kotlin
|
|||
|
|
// domains/identity-store/src/test/kotlin/.../StoreJpaRepositoryTest.kt
|
|||
|
|
@DataJpaTest
|
|||
|
|
@Testcontainers
|
|||
|
|
class StoreJpaRepositoryTest {
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
companion object {
|
|||
|
|
@Container
|
|||
|
|
@JvmStatic
|
|||
|
|
val postgres = PostgreSQLContainer("postgres:16")
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@JvmStatic
|
|||
|
|
@DynamicPropertySource
|
|||
|
|
fun props(registry: DynamicPropertyRegistry) {
|
|||
|
|
registry.add("spring.datasource.url", postgres::getJdbcUrl)
|
|||
|
|
registry.add("spring.datasource.username", postgres::getUsername)
|
|||
|
|
registry.add("spring.datasource.password", postgres::getPassword)
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@Autowired lateinit var repository: StoreJpaRepository
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@Test
|
|||
|
|
fun `按 code 查询门店`() {
|
|||
|
|
repository.save(StoreEntity(name = "示例门店", code = "S001", status = StoreStatus.ACTIVE))
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
val found = repository.findByCode("S001")
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
assertNotNull(found)
|
|||
|
|
assertEquals("示例门店", found?.name)
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
用真实 PostgreSQL（而不是 H2）跑测试，是因为 Flyway migration 里的 SQL 方言、JPA 对特定数据库函数的行为，H2 不一定能完全模拟，容易出现"H2 测试通过、生产环境报错"的假阳性。
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## `api` 层测试示例（`@WebMvcTest`）
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```kotlin
|
|||
|
|
@WebMvcTest(StoreController::class)
|
|||
|
|
class StoreControllerTest {
|
|||
|
|
@Autowired lateinit var mockMvc: MockMvc
|
|||
|
|
@MockkBean lateinit var storeAppService: StoreAppService
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@Test
|
|||
|
|
fun `切换门店参数为空时返回参数校验错误`() {
|
|||
|
|
mockMvc.post("/api/v1/stores/switch") {
|
|||
|
|
contentType = MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON
|
|||
|
|
content = """{}"""
|
|||
|
|
}.andExpect {
|
|||
|
|
status { isBadRequest() }
|
|||
|
|
jsonPath("$.code") { value("INVALID_PARAM") } // 对应 06-api-design.md 的 ApiResult 结构
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 外部依赖打桩示例（WireMock，覆盖 F6 超时/熔断路径）
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```kotlin
|
|||
|
|
@Testcontainers
|
|||
|
|
class F6ApiClientResilienceTest {
|
|||
|
|
companion object {
|
|||
|
|
@Container
|
|||
|
|
@JvmStatic
|
|||
|
|
val wireMock = WireMockContainer("wiremock/wiremock:3.9.1")
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@Test
|
|||
|
|
fun `F6 响应超时后走 fallback 返回降级数据`() {
|
|||
|
|
wireMock.stubFor(
|
|||
|
|
get(urlPathEqualTo("/f6/procurement/list"))
|
|||
|
|
.willReturn(aResponse().withFixedDelay(5000).withStatus(200)) // 模拟超过 timeout 配置的慢响应
|
|||
|
|
)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
val result = f6ApiClient.fetchProcurementList(storeId = 1).block()
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
assertTrue(result!!.degraded) // 验证 05-integration-layer.md 里配置的 2s 超时 + fallback 生效
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
}
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 附录：为什么 domain 层用 mock、infrastructure 层坚持用真实依赖
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
这是测试金字塔的实际落地取舍：越往下层（domain）测试数量应该越多、跑得越快，因为业务规则的分支组合往往很多（各种边界条件），用 mock 把依赖都隔离掉才能便宜地把每个分支都测到；越往上/往基础设施层，测试数量应该越少但真实度要求越高，因为这一层要验证的恰恰是"我们对某个具体技术（JPA、真实数据库、真实 HTTP 依赖）的假设是否成立"——如果这一层也用 mock，等于假设了"这个假设是对的"，那测试就失去了意义。
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Testcontainers 和 WireMock 的共同点是：它们让"跑得慢、需要真实环境"的测试仍然可以在 CI 里可重复地跑起来（每次测试起一个全新的容器，跑完销毁，不依赖某个共享的、状态可能被污染的测试环境）。
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 待补充
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- 各 domain 覆盖率要求。
|
|||
|
|
- 是否需要和 APP 端做端到端契约测试（比如引入 Pact）。
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 参考链接
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- [MockK 官方文档](https://mockk.io/)
|
|||
|
|
- [Testcontainers 官方文档](https://testcontainers.com/)
|
|||
|
|
- [WireMock 官方文档](https://wiremock.org/docs/)
|
|||
|
|
- [Martin Fowler: Test Pyramid](https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestPyramid.html)
|