Limiting how often you run seeds and migrations in Laravel 5.2 testing

If integration tests take too long to run then we stop running them because they're just an annoyance. This is obviously not ideal and so getting my tests to run quickly is important.

I'm busy writing a test suite for Laravel and wanted more flexibility than the built-in options that Laravel offers for working with databases between tests.

Using the DataMigrations trait meant that my seed data would be lost after every test. Migrating and seeding my entire database for every test in my suite is very time consuming.

Even when using an in-memory sqlite database doing a complete migration and seed was taking several seconds on my dev box.

If I used the DataTransactions trait then my migrations and seeds would never run and so my tests would fail because the fixture data is missing.

My solution was to use a static variable in the base TestCase class that Laravel supplies. It has to be static so that it retains its values between tests by the way. This variable is a boolean flag and tracks whether we need to run the migrations and seeds. We initialise the class with it set on and so the migrations and seeds will run the first time that any test run.

Now the fact that I'm using Laravel DataTransactions should spare me from affecting the database between tests but if I wanted to be 100% certain I could set the flag and have my database refreshed when the next test runs.

This also means that if the DataTransactions trait is not sufficient (for example I'm using multiple database connections) then I can manually refresh when I want to.

Comments

Solving Doctrine - A new entity was found through the relationship

There are so many different problems that people have with the Doctrine error message: exception 'Doctrine\ORM\ORMInvalidArgumentException' with message 'A new entity was found through the relationship 'App\Lib\Domain\Datalayer\UnicodeLookups#lookupStatus' that was not configured to cascade persist operations for entity: Searching through the various online sources was a bit of a nightmare. The best documentation I found was at http://www.krueckeberg.org/ where there were a number of clearly explained examples of various associations. More useful information about association ownership was in the Doctrine manual , but I found a more succinct explanation in the answer to this question on StackOverflow . Now I understood better about associations and ownership and was able to identify exactly what sort I was using and the syntax that was required. I was implementing a uni-directional many to one relationship, which is supposedly one of the most simpl...

Grokking PHP monolog context into Elastic

An indexed and searchable centralized log is one of those tools that once you've had it you'll wonder how you managed without it. I've experienced a couple of advantages to using a central log - debugging, monitoring performance, and catching unknown problems. Debugging Debugging becomes easier because instead of poking around grepping text logs on servers you're able to use a GUI to contrast and compare values between different time ranges. A ticket will often include sparse information about the problem and observed error, but if you know more or less when a problem occurred then you can check the logs of all your systems at that time. Problem behaviour in your application can occur as a result of the services you depend on. A database fault will produce errors in your application, for example. If you log your database errors and your application errors in the same central platform then it's much more convenient to compare behaviour between...

Translating a bit of the idea behind domain driven design into code architecture

I've often participated in arguments discussions about whether thin models or thin controllers should be preferred. The wisdom of a thin controller is that if you need to test your controller in isolation then you need to stub the dependencies of your request and response. It also violates the single responsibility principal because the controller could have multiple reasons to change. Seemingly, the alternative is to settle on having fat models. This results in having domain logic right next to your persistence logic. If you ever want to change your persistence layer you're going to be in for a painful time. That's a bit of a cargo cult argument because honestly who does that, but it's also a violation of the single responsibility principal. One way to decouple your domain logic from both persistence and controller is to use the "repository pattern". Here we encapsulate domain logic into a data service. This layer deals exclusively with imple...

Adventures in IT

Search This Blog