testable-mock | Write Mock in another way to make unit | Mock library

First, this error message is indeed expected on Jan. 11th, 2022.
See "Improving Git protocol security on GitHub".

January 11, 2022 Final brownout.

This is the full brownout period where we’ll temporarily stop accepting the deprecated key and signature types, ciphers, and MACs, and the unencrypted Git protocol.
This will help clients discover any lingering use of older keys or old URLs.

Second, check your package.json dependencies for any git:// URL, as in this example, fixed in this PR.

As noted by Jörg W Mittag:

There was a 4-month warning.
The entire Internet has been moving away from unauthenticated, unencrypted protocols for a decade, it's not like this is a huge surprise.

Personally, I consider it less an "issue" and more "detecting unmaintained dependencies".

Plus, this is still only the brownout period, so the protocol will only be disabled for a short period of time, allowing developers to discover the problem.

The permanent shutdown is not until March 15th.

As in actions/checkout issue 14, you can add as a first step:

If you look at React without JSX, you'll see that the XML-inspired syntax () is just short for React.createElement('MockComponent').

Right now, if you renamed mockComponent to MockComponent and tried using the angle bracket syntax, the first issue is that your function receives two arguments. React components are either class components that take one constructor argument (props) or functional components that take one argument (again, props). The second issue is that your function returns a React functional component, when it needs to return a rendered React element.

One way to fix this issue is to convert mockComponent into a React functional component and make module and propOverride props of the FC.

Both HttpWebRequest constructors are obsolete and should not be used. You have to use the static function "Create" to create a new instance of the HttpWebRequest class:

HttpWebRequest myReq = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create("http://www.contoso.com/");

To solve your issue, use the HttpClient class instead. This class has a parameterless constructor.

Here you have a working example:

The logic of comparing files seems alright, I don't find any outstanding problem with it, it is ok to prepend the "/" to match what you need. Could be even better if you could use the System.IO.Path.DirectorySeparatorChar for the directory root path as well, so if you run on windows or Linux you will have no issues.

But there may be a conceptual problem with what you are doing. To my understanding you aim to verify existence of specific configuration files required for your program to work right, if those files are missing than the program should fail. But that kind of failure due to missing configuration files, is an expected and valid result of your code. Yet, you unit-test this as if missing files should fail the test, as if missing files are an indication that something wrong with your code, this is wrong.

Missing files are not indication of your code not working correct and Unit-test should not be used as a validator to make sure the files exist prior executing the program, you will likely agree that unit-test is not part of the actual process and it should only aim to test your code and not preconditions, the test should compare an expected result (mock result of your code) vs. actual result and certainly not meant to become part of the code. That unit test looks like a validator that should be in the code.

So unless those files are produced by your specific code (and not the deployment) there is no sense testing that. In such case you need to create a configuration validator code - and your unit test could test that instead. So it will test that the validator expected result with a mock input you provide. But the thing here is that you would know that you only testing the validation logic and not the actual existence of the files.

This is exactly one of the reasons why the view model is passed with a default value. In the preview, you can pass a test object:

"As of 1.2.0 and onward all the releases of this package are going to match the @chainlink/contracts NPM tags So it will look backwards, but we are starting with 0.2.1"

Change: @chainlink=smartcontractkit/chainlink-brownie-contracts@1.1.1 To: @chainlink=smartcontractkit/chainlink-brownie-contracts@0.2.1

https://github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink-brownie-contracts/tree/v0.2.1

Because it's a named export you should return an object in the mock

Yeah. I also fought with this initially when I learned patching and mocking and know how frustrating it is as you seem to be doing everything right, but it does not work. I sympathise with you!

This is actually how mocking of imported stuff works, and once you realise it, it actually makes sense.

The problem is that import works in the way that it makes the imported module available in the context of where your import is.

Lets' assume your code.py module is in 'my_package' folder. Your code is available then as my_package.code. And once you use from dag_common.connections import get_conn in code module - the imported get_conn becomes available as .... my_package.code.get_conn

And in this case you need to patch my_package.code.get_conn not the original package you imported get_conn from.

Once you realise this, patching becomes much easier.