At Opscode we have an internal Jenkins cluster that runs our test suites against each project as commits are pushed; pretty standard stuff. We also built a tool around vagrant that we plan to release soon that we use for standing up test VMs to run integration tests, cookbook tests and tests against the APIs common among our codebases. Like many, we are constantly working on improving our testing and recently have been moving our build systems into Jenkins as well.
We recently released Ruby Omnibus, which is the build system we use internally for producing Private Chef packages for our customers. Along with the software descriptions, it is now building public Chef client packages as well and will soon be the source of Open Source Chef Server packages.
Everyone knows that testing is essential, but figuring out how to do it can be a confusing journey. Today we’re excited to share a guest post by **Andrew Crump** @acrmp. Andrew is the author of Foodcritic, a tool for checking your cookbooks for best practices and other errors which may be syntactically correct, but would fail when the cookbook is converged by Chef.
We spend a lot of time thinking about the cookbook contribution process and how to test patches to ensure they don’t break functionality. Andrew also recently wrote full suites of minitest and cucumber tests for both the apache2 and mysql cookbooks. Take a look and let us know what you think.
I can’t say enough good things about Andrews work. He has not only provided great tools for the community, but that work is well documented and very professional. He is another contributor that we’re proud to have as part of our community.
— Bryan McLellan
**Don’t miss the screencast Andrew produced for this blog post: Chef and BDD**
# On the level: Testing your infrastructure
*By Andrew Crump*
Testing is a hot topic in the Chef and Ruby communities. Opscode have kindly
agreed to share a screencast I’ve prepared on TDD and BDD and how they relate to
writing examples for your infrastructure which you can watch below. I hope you
find it interesting.
Behaviour Driven Development is essentially an extension of Test Driven
Development, but expressing examples in language that everyone involved can
understand, not just developers.
To quote the RSpec Book:
*Behaviour-Driven Development is about implementing an application by
describing its behavior from the perspective of its stakeholders.*
The RSpec Book describes an iterative approach where you first outline an
example in domain language, and then ‘drop down’ to write examples at the level
of unit tests to further define the behaviour of the code.
### So why link infrastructure back to examples?
Obviously the infrastructure services are required to support the user’s
scenario. We already know it’s necessary, so why try to link our infrastructure
back to examples?
* By focusing on examples of the users use of the application rather than
focusing on the fun implementation detail we can more easily expose
assumptions we might have about the implementation. It encourages thinking
creatively to meet the users needs rather than repeating patterns we’ve used
in the past out of habit. It also exposes waste – by focusing on meeting the
users needs with the simplest implementation possible we just avoid doing
* If we have an automated suite of examples we can run against the application
and its infrastructure then this opens up the prospect of refactoring our
infrastructure. We can experiment and swap out components of our
infrastructure, confident that our examples will detect any regression. By
running our examples we can validate at any point in time that we are still
able to support the example scenarios that our stakeholders care about.
### What do examples look like?
When you write examples you start by writing them in domain language – for
example these might be English sentences in the Given / When / Then format.
Take the following example:
Given I want hire a car
When I search for late-model vehicles specifying my hire dates
Then I should be shown the available vehicles
We don’t express these examples in terms of nodes, cookbooks, resources and
roles. Neither do we express these examples in terms of SSHing onto a box and
running a command to check a service is running. These are specific to the
implementation of our infrastructure and too low-level, here we should be
describing the business scenarios that we think we need to support.
In most cases many different application and infrastructure services will be
needed to satisfy a user scenario. There often won’t be a clear relationship
between the example scenarios and the underlying infrastructure created to
support them. Our examples will typically cut across multiple application and
### It sounds like the infrastructure I build with Chef sits below this
It does. But you can also benefit hugely from testing at the service layer. We
can test that following a converge of a node against a Chef role that the node
behaves as we would expect the nodes of that role to behave.
To make this concrete – imagine we have a MySQL cookbook that ships with service
layer examples. When we deploy a new instance of our database role we can run
these examples. They will attempt to connect to the server as a MySQL client and
verify they can query and modify data. The examples can be run on another node
You are now getting into implementation detail – detail that not everyone
involved will care about or understand. When writing your cookbook you will
still be practicing TDD, but these examples won’t necessarily be expressed in a
tool like Cucumber as using normal sentences offers little additional benefit.
An exception is if you are writing cookbooks to be widely used by people that
know just enough Ruby for Chef but that may not be able to grok your tests – in
this case examples written in plain English may be a better idea.
### Ok, so I’m not checking which resources have been created on the node?
No, that’s the job of your lower level resource tests that can verify that the
box has the correct state. These tests can poke around and look at the state –
the packages installed and services started. The service layer tests that sit
above these don’t care about how you got the service to work, only that it can
for example query MySQL.
These tests will be the most natural to get up and running with as they are at
the same level as writing Chef recipes. However I’d really like to see more
people writing tests to test that a service behaves as expected, and sharing
these with the community as part of their cookbooks.
### Cucumber isn’t cool
While Cucumber is a popular tool to use when attempting to practise BDD it has
become fashionable to look down on Cucumber as introducing an unnecessary step
in the development process which adds complexity and boilerplate for little
benefit. There is some truth to this, but some of this is also down to mis-use
of the tool:
* The main benefits are to broaden the set of people that can get involved and
decouple the business examples from the implementation. Being forced to write
the examples separately can help clarity but if you are writing scenarios that
only the development team reads you are probably doing it wrong.
* Cucumber is often associated with unmaintainable proliferation of steps. The
code that sits behind your features is still code and you should strive to
write clean code and remove duplication the same as you would elsewhere.
Often the easiest way to avoid step definition hell is to extract methods to a
separate steps module, so that the step definition is merely a call out to
this reusable library of step definitions.
* Avoid using pre-canned step definitions when writing your features. This can
be very tempting at first but as the whole point of writing features is to
express the examples in your own domain language, any attempt to rely on
pre-canned definitions will invariably lead to writing features that don’t
concisely and clearly express the example. For example, use of web steps
“When I fill in form field with value” or SSH steps
“When I run this command on the node” should be avoided. Your steps may take
these actions behind the scenes but to use this language in your features
surfaces too much detail and makes your features hard to follow.
### What’s next?
I think there’s a massive public benefit in shipping service layer tests with
our cookbooks – being able to demonstrably prove that the examples for a
service work following code changes allows us to be much more confident when
making changes and should help drive more feature-rich and solid cookbooks.
– Jim Hopp’s talk Test Driven Development for Chef Practitioners
– David Calavera’s minitest-chef-handler
featured in the unit test examples.
See also the MiniTest::Spec Examples
– I’ve shared the sample project with tmuxinator
and guard config if you want to try this workflow
– Mike Cohn’s blog post The Forgotten Layer of the Test Automation Pyramid
– The RSpec Book
– Working with Unix Processes
– The Five Whys
– FoodFight Episode 17