Add MessageGateway test generator #3996
Conversation
lillo42
requested review from
DevJonny,
holytshirt,
iancooper and
preardon
as code owners
![codescene-delta-analysis[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/53921?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Pull Request Review: Add MessageGateway Test GeneratorSummaryThis PR introduces a test generator for messaging gateway implementations, extending the existing test generation infrastructure to reduce code duplication across different messaging providers (RabbitMQ, AWS SNS/SQS, Azure Service Bus, etc.). The implementation follows the established pattern from the Outbox generator and includes comprehensive documentation via ADR 0037. Positive Aspects ✅Architecture & Design
Code Quality
Issues & Concerns 🔴1. Critical: Null Reference Issues in DefaultMessageFactory.csLocation: The public Message Create(MessageConfiguration? configuration = null)
{
var messageHeader = new MessageHeader(
messageId: configuration.MessageId, // ⚠️ NullReferenceException if configuration is null
topic: configuration.Topic,
// ... all other properties accessed without null checkFix: Either:
Severity: HIGH - This will cause runtime exceptions 2. Code Style Violation: Inconsistent SpacingLocation: The public class MessageConfiguration
{
public Dictionary<string, object> Bag { get; set; } = new() { ... };
public Baggage Baggage { get; set; } = new(); // ⚠️ 2 spaces instead of 4
public ContentType ContentType { get; set; } = ... // ⚠️ InconsistentFix: Use consistent 4-space indentation for all properties Severity: MEDIUM - Code style violation 3. Typo in Configuration Property NameLocation: Property name has a typo: public Dictionary<string, MessagingGatewayConfiguration>? MessagingGatewaies { get; set; }Impact: This affects the public API of the configuration and should be corrected before release Severity: MEDIUM - Breaking change required 4. Hard-coded Delay ValuesLocation: The generated test has hard-coded delays:
While the configuration has Severity: LOW - Test maintainability issue 5. Missing XML Documentation CommentLocation: The Severity: LOW - Documentation completeness 6. Commented-out Code in GeneratorLocation: // await GenerateAsync(
// configuration,
// Path.Combine("MessagingGateway", prefix, "Generated", "Reactor"),
// Path.Combine("MessagingGateway", "Reactor"),
// configuration.MessagingGateway,
// filename => SkipTest(configuration.MessagingGateway, filename)
// );Questions:
Severity: LOW - Code cleanliness 7. Empty Skip Test ImplementationLocation: private static bool SkipTest(MessagingGatewayConfiguration configuration, string fileName)
{
return false;
}This always returns
Severity: LOW - Potential missing functionality Test Coverage Concerns
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No application code in the PR — skipped Code Health checks.
See analysis details in CodeScene
Quality Gate Profile: Clean Code Collective
Want more control? Customize Code Health rules or catch issues early with our IDE extension and CLI tool.
Pull Request Review: Add MessageGateway Test GeneratorSummaryThis PR successfully extends the test generator tool to support messaging gateway tests, following the established pattern from the Outbox generator. The implementation is well-architected, consistent with the existing codebase, and includes comprehensive documentation via ADR 0037. ✅ StrengthsArchitecture & Design
Code Quality
Testing Infrastructure
🔍 Issues & Concerns1. Copy-paste error in log message (Minor)Location: logger.LogInformation("Generating outbox test for {OutboxName}", key);Should be: logger.LogInformation("Generating messaging gateway test for {GatewayName}", key);2. Commented-out code (Minor)Location: Reactor pattern generation is commented out for single gateway configuration but enabled for multiple gateways (lines 87-93). This inconsistency suggests:
Recommendation: Remove commented code or add a TODO comment explaining why Reactor is disabled. 3. Typo in property name (Medium)Location: public Dictionary<string, MessagingGatewayConfiguration>? MessagingGateways { get; set; }Property is named 4. Potential null reference issues (Low)Location: Generated test template line 698 _subscription = _messageGatewayProvider.CreateSubscription(_publication.Topic!, ...)Using null-forgiving operator ( 5. Hardcoded delay values (Medium - Performance)Location: Generated test at lines 717 and 732 await Task.Delay(5000); // Hardcoded 5-second delayThe test hardcodes a 5-second delay even though the configuration specifies Recommendation: Use the configuration value from 6. Empty SkipTest implementation (Low)Location: private static bool SkipTest(MessagingGatewayConfiguration configuration, string fileName)
{
return false;
}This stub exists in
7. Missing validation (Low)Location: The configuration properties
💡 Suggestions for Improvement1. Test CoverageThe PR only includes one generated test:
2. Partition Key HandlingLocation: Line 707-710 of generated test _messageFactory.Create(new MessageConfiguration{Topic = _publication.Topic, PartitionKey = null}),The partition key is explicitly set to null. This seems intentional but isn't documented. Consider:
3. Resource Cleanup OrderingLocation: Channel is disposed synchronously ( 🔒 Security ConsiderationsNo security concerns identified. The generated tests use localhost RabbitMQ connections with guest credentials, which is appropriate for test environments. ⚡ Performance ConsiderationsTest execution time: The hardcoded 5-second delays mean each 4-message test takes ~20+ seconds. For large test suites, this could be significant. Consider:
📋 Documentation & MaintainabilityExcellent documentation overall. The ADR is thorough and includes:
Minor improvement: Add a section in the ADR about how to add new test scenarios in the future. 🎯 RecommendationsMust Fix (Before Merge)
Should Fix (Before or Shortly After Merge)
Nice to Have (Future Work)
✅ Final AssessmentRecommendation: APPROVE with minor changes This is a high-quality PR that:
The issues identified are mostly minor and can be addressed in follow-up commits or as part of this PR. The core architecture is sound and ready for use. Estimated risk level: Low Great work @lillo42! This is a valuable addition to the test infrastructure. 🎉 |
|
I just want to say how excited I am for this. |
iancooper
left a comment
iancooper
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can think of a few other points, but let's start with these.
| - Generates tests from Liquid templates | ||
| - Follows the same pattern as `OutboxGenerator` for consistency | ||
|
|
||
| ### 3. Updated Message Factories and Assertions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I note that I have had more success when running the Dispatcher using a handler that takes the FakeTimeProvider to advance the time, rather than using Task Delay, when timing is being used to trigger a behaviour. It's possible a few tests could benefit from this
|
|
||
| ### Negative | ||
|
|
||
| - **Learning Curve**: Developers need to understand the generator and template system |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where to start when you want to add a new feature to our MessagingGateways as well. Much harder to iterate on in-memory and then roll out. We need to document the recommended loop
| _messageAssertion = new DefaultMessageAssertion(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public Task InitializeAsync() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems a little bit unnecessary. What forces this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's part of the IAsyncLifeTime
| if (subscription.MakeChannels == OnMissingChannel.Create) | ||
| { | ||
| // Ensuring that the queue exists before return the channel | ||
| await channel.ReceiveAsync(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100), cancellationToken); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems problematic to have to use Receive to force the call to EnsureChannel. I wonder if we need an Init method for a channel that also calls EnsureChannel. (Receive should still call EnsureChannel, but we would have an explicit Init too)
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public ChannelName GetOrCreateChannelName([CallerMemberName] string? testName = null) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need this, over a property set via the constructor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It'll set the test name at compilation time, it's an option I prefer via this attribute because I don't need to force those who implement it to have a constructor
| /// <summary> | ||
| /// Default implementation of <see cref="IAmAMessageFactory"/> that creates messages with randomly generated test data. | ||
| /// </summary> | ||
| public class DefaultMessageFactory : IAmAMessageFactory |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could use the Builder pattern here, which would allow you to have default values and then override properties: https://blog.ploeh.dk/2017/08/21/generalised-test-data-builder/
| /// <summary> | ||
| /// Defines a contract for asserting equality between two Message instances. | ||
| /// </summary> | ||
| public interface IAmAMessageAssertion |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this an interface? Not sure I understand the thinking
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to assert the received message against the provided message. In some message gateways like RabbitMQ, the MessageId will be different on message Requeue, so I want to use this interface to cover this cases
| /// <summary> | ||
| /// Provides configuration for creating test messages with customizable header values and body content. | ||
| /// </summary> | ||
| public class MessageConfiguration |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this. A message has a wide range of defaults after all
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll move to a build, as suggested in the previous comment
Overview
Extends the \Paramore.Brighter.Test.Generator` tool to automatically generate standardized tests for messaging gateway implementations (RabbitMQ, AWS SNS/SQS, Azure Service Bus, etc.), reducing code duplication and
ensuring consistent test coverage across all gateway implementations.
What's Changed
Configuration System
MessagingGatewayandMessagingGatewaiespropertiesGenerator Implementation
Message Factory & Assertions
IAmAMessageFactoryinterface andDefaultMessageFactoryimplementationIAmAMessageAssertioninterface andDefaultMessageAssertionimplementationCreatedMessagespropertyTemplates
MessagingGateway/Proactor/- Async test templatesMessagingGateway/Reactor/- Sync test templatesDocumentation
Benefits